PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD 

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Prepared for:

FEDERAL RAIL ADMINISTRATION

Mississippi Department of Transportation

April 2018


This page left intentionally blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Federal Railroad Administration

Administrative Action – Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

(X) Draft EIS ( ) Final EIS

( ) Section 4(f) Statement attached

Contacts

The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:

Mr. Kevin Wright Ms. Kim Thurman

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Division Administrator

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Mississippi Department of Transportation

Washington, DC 20590 401 North West Street

Phone: (202) 493-0845 Jackson, MS 39201

Kevin.Wright@dot.gov Phone: (601) 359-7920

kthurman@mdot.state.ms.us

The Proposed Action

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), and the Hancock County Port and Harbor 

Commission (HCPHC) are proposing a new freight rail line that would provide a direct connection between 

the Port Bienville Railroad (PBRR) and the Norfolk Southern (NS) rail line near Interstate 59 (I-59), north 

of NASA’s John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC). This connection would provide a second Class I rail 

connection to Port Bienville and the Port Bienville Industrial Park.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an operating administration within the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, agreed to serve as the lead Federal agency in the preparation of this Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS).

The following Federal agencies agreed to participate in the development of this EIS as cooperating 

agencies:

▪ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

▪ National Marine Fisheries Service 

▪ Surface Transportation Board 

The following agencies agreed to participate in the development of the EIS as participating agencies:

▪ Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

▪ US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES-2

Currently, there is no funding or Project Sponsor identified for construction of the Project. If FRA funding 

is used to construct the Project, FRA would require the future Project Sponsor to comply with the 

commitments and mitigation measures outlined in this document.

Purpose and Need

Freight transportation represents a key competitiveness factor for Hancock County. Businesses today 

compete on the basis of product quality, timeliness, and cost. The transportation network that serves their 

facilities must provide reliable connections to customers and access to a multitude of markets, ensure timely 

deliveries of goods and services, and provide access for employees and customers. The purpose of the 

Project is to provide dual Class I access to the Port Bienville Industrial Park to support the needs of its 

tenants and other industries in the area. 

Providing dual Class I access to the Port Bienville Industrial Park Project would address the following 

needs:

▪ Improve rail transport time, reliability and cost;

▪ Foster greater economic opportunities and attract new industries to Hancock and Pearl River 

Counties; 

▪ Create flexibility and resilience in rail transportation options during storms and other emergencies. 

Summary of Major Alternatives

The alternatives in this study are:

▪ No-Build Alternative

▪ Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would allow existing conditions to be maintained. The proposed new rail line 

would not be constructed and there would be no impacts to wetlands, streams, floodplains, and water 

quality. Noise and vibration impacts, impacts to cultural resources, farmlands, and oil and gas pipelines

would also not occur. However, the No-Build alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need goals of 

providing improved rail transport time, reliability, and costs, fostering greater economic opportunities, and 

creating flexibility and resiliency in transportation options.

The Build Alternative includes the construction of a new proposed rail line, approximately 24 miles in 

length. The proposed rail line would provide a direct connection between the PBRR and the NS rail line 

near I-59, north of SSC. A Feasibility Study was conducted in 2013 as a first step in developing the Project; 

this study developed and analyzed a number of alternatives for the proposed rail corridor alignment. The 

streamlined screening and selection process for this Project incorporated geographic information systems 

(GIS) analysis, an automated corridor analysis tool called the Alignment Alternatives Research Tool 

(AART), limited field reconnaissance and data validation, engineering design criteria, and review and 

evaluation by professional planners and engineers that comprise the Project team. These activities were 

performed as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and incorporated client input, 

public and other stakeholder comments and concerns, as well as consideration of previous studies. The 

alternatives development process was iterative in nature, providing a continuous quantification and 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES-3

comparison of impacts to an equal level of detail as the alternatives were modified based on design criteria, 

cost, and other considerations during Project development. One main corridor of least impact was identified 

for the majority of the alignment; four segments along the corridor still had multiple alternates. As these 

segments were evaluated using an impact matrix, alternate segments were eliminated, and a reasonable 

Build Alternative was brought forward for detailed study.

Preliminary cost estimates were updated for the Build Alternative identified. Quantities were estimated 

from conceptual designs and unit cost data for similar type rail construction was used to estimate the 

construction costs including right of way, earthwork and drainage, track work, bridges and grade crossings. 

The estimated cost for the Build Alternative is $118,151,000 in 2016 dollars.

The Build Alternative has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the Project; it will be reviewed

during distribution of the DEIS and during the public hearing. Any changes made to the Preferred 

Alternative based on comments received will be addressed in the FEIS/Record of Decision (ROD).

Summary of Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for this Project but was considered as a 

baseline for the comparison of impacts with the Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not

impact either the natural or human environment; however, the anticipated economic benefits of the 

proposed Project would also not be realized. The Build Alternative would impact both the natural and 

human environment. As summarized in Table ES 1, the primary impacts would include streams, wetlands, 

farmlands, floodplains, noise, vibration, and safety of at-grade crossings. 

Table ES 1: Summary of Impacts and Costs

Impact Category (Units) No-Build 

Alternative Build Alternative

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Cultural Resources (Sites) N/A 0

Farmland (Acres) N/A 222 

Noise (No.) N/A 2 Severe/12 Moderate

Vibration (No.) N/A 3

Residential Relocations (No.) N/A 0

Hazardous Materials (Sites) N/A 1

Business Relocations (No.) N/A 0

Environmental Justice Impacted Census Blocks (No.) N/A 4

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Streams (LF)1 N/A 2,482

Wetlands (Acres)1 N/A 171.58

Other Waters (Acres)1 N/A 2.01

Floodplains (Acres) N/A 96.74

Threatened and Endangered Species (affect/impact) N/A 7

2

ENGINEERING

Gas Pipelines (Crossings No.) N/A 8

Railroad Bridges Over Roadways (No.) N/A 4

Railroad Bridges Over Streams (No.) N/A 2
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES-4

Impact Category (Units) No-Build 

Alternative Build Alternative

SAFETY AND MOBILITY

At-Grade Crossings (No.) N/A 22

Construction Costs N/A $ 118,151,058

(1) Based on detail field work.

(2) Two of the species are State Listed Species

Areas of Controversy

Federal and state agencies have been involved in the process since the beginning of the Phase 1 feasibility 

study. Also, Project stakeholders, local officials, and the public have been engaged in the planning process 

and Project development. Stakeholders, local officials, and the public have been supportive of the Project

and controversy over the Project has been limited. The consensus is that this is a much-needed Project for 

Hancock County, the region, and the state.

Impacts to natural resources, including wetlands and streams, within this area is a major concern. Resource 

agencies, including USACE, MDEQ and EPA have expressed that maintaining the hydrology and sheet 

flow within this area is of high importance. Although the design elements of the Project are conceptual at 

this point, efforts to minimize impacts to both the human and natural environments will continue during 

Project development. 

Coordination Required

A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit will be required for construction of the Build 

Alternative. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, requires that the proposed Project be permitted before any 

construction activities, including dredging or fill, occur within waters of the U.S. Mississippi Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The future Project sponsor will be responsible for obtaining the 

permits. Permitting would be coordinated with requirements of the Clean Water Act to ensure that water 

quality is maintained. Coordination with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is underway

for any potential impacts to threatened and/or endangered species. Also, coordination will be required with 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during Project design to ensure that there are no 

encroachments to the floodway. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH) for any impacts to cultural resources is ongoing.

MDAH/SHPO does agree that the construction of the Project would not have an adverse impact on any of 

the identified cultural resource sites. Coordination with utility companies, pipelines, and other infrastructure 

facilities will be ongoing through Project development.

Summary of Environmental Consequences

If FRA funding is used to construct the Project, FRA would require the future Project Sponsor to comply 

with any commitments and mitigation measures outlined in this section.

Land Use

Because 76% of the land within the Study Area is within the SSC acoustical buffer zone, land use changes 

are not anticipated in the area. 

South of U.S. 90, the alignment exits the SSC acoustical buffer zone and continues south for 1.7 miles to 

PBRR; future land use within this section of the Study Area has the highest potential to change as a result 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES-5

of the Build Alternative, where industrial and other commercial development could occur between the Build 

Alternative and Port Bienville Industrial Park. These potential land use changes are consistent with future 

land use designations identified in the Hancock County Comprehensive Plan, where this area is designated 

for industrial, office park and office retail uses.

Farmland

NRCS uses a land evaluation and site assessment system to establish a farmland conversion impact rating 

score; the assessment is completed using form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating For 

Corridor Type Projects. The resulting site assessment score is under 160, the threshold for determining 

impacts to protected farmland. For Projects with a score less than 160, no alternative actions (alternative 

sites, modifications or mitigation) need to be considered for farmlands impacts. Coordination with NRCS 

was initiated in the form of a written letter, Project description and map and NRCS-CPA-106 form to the 

state soil scientist on October 19, 2016. 

Socioeconomics

The Build Alternative would provide a link between the PBRR and the Norfolk Southern line, which would 

support economic development and growth in Hancock County and the Port Bienville Industrial Park. This 

would provide dual Class I rail service, at the Park, which would make the area more appealing to industries 

that benefit from or require this rail service. Potential benefits of this service would be attracting new 

businesses that would provide job growth; reducing rail shipping costs; additional transportation options 

for moving freight; and providing alternative response options in the event of emergency and natural 

disaster situations.

With the benefits of attracting new businesses and increasing workforce expected by the proposed Project, 

it is likely that increases in employment and income may be experienced in the region.

Relocations

There are no relocations associated with the proposed Project.

Environmental Justice

The Build Alternative would have no disproportionately high or adverse effects to environmental justice 

populations. No relocations are anticipated, and access would be maintained for all property owners during 

and post construction.

Cultural Resources

Archaeological Sites

Thirteen of the 24 linear sites have been determined as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Eleven sites 

are considered as unknown for their eligibility determination. While sites with an NRHP eligibility 

determination of “unknown” are present, FRA has determined the construction of the Project would not 

have an adverse impact on these sites. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has 

been conducted and the MDAH/SHPO have concurred.

If unanticipated cultural materials (e.g., large, intact artifacts or animal bones; large soils stains or patterns 

of soil stains; buried brick or stone structures; clusters of brick or stone) or human skeletal remains are 

discovered during construction activities, then the appropriate construction engineer shall be immediately 

notified and all work in the vicinity of the discovered materials shall cease until an evaluation can be made 

by the MDOT archaeologist in consultation with the MDAH/SHPO.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES-6

Historic Structures

Three historic structures were identified within the architectural APE. Resource 1 is an approximately 145-

foot-long open-deck timber trestle over Second Alligator Branch. Resource 2 is an approximately 145-footlong two-span through plate girder bridge over Alligator Branch. Resource 3 is a prefabricated corrugated 

metal pipe culvert over Indian Camp Branch. None of these resources were determined to be eligible for 

the NRHP. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is ongoing.

Air Quality

Air quality impacts are possible during construction of the Project. Emissions from construction vehicles 

and equipment can be minimized by employment of several BMPs: (1) properly maintaining and tuning 

equipment; (2) reducing equipment idling time; (3) planning efficient routes from construction material 

loading sites to the construction site; and, (4) using alternative fuels for construction equipment, when 

feasible. Emissions from local vehicles resulting from detours and other traffic delays during construction 

can also be minimized by implementing BMPs during construction, including properly planning traffic 

control in work zones and signage. Dust generated by construction activities can be minimized by providing 

water suppression controls and soil stabilizers. The future Project Sponsor identified for construction of 

the Project will be responsible for implementing BMPs for air quality. 

Noise and Vibration

Noise and vibration associated with the proposed Project has the potential to affect residential and 

commercial properties adjacent to the rail line near Nicholson. Using methods published by the FTA/FRA, 

Project-related noise and vibration were evaluated to assess the potential for impacts. Analysis results 

indicate that Project-related noise and vibration has the potential to exceed impact thresholds as defined by 

the FTA/FRA. It has been determined that 12 receptors could experience moderate noise impacts and two 

receptors have the potential to experience severe noise impacts. FRA does not require mitigation for

moderate noise impacts, because the magnitude of the change in noise levels or overall noise level is modest 

and not projected to substantially affect sleep or other activities. Noise mitigation for severe impacts may 

include: eliminating locomotive horn use at the U.S. 11 at-grade crossing, retrofitting buildings with air 

conditioning and improved storm doors and windows, or settlements. These would only be considered

where severe noise impacts are projected to occur prior to the Final Environmental Impacts Statement 

(FEIS). The future Project Sponsor would be responsible for implementation of noise mitigation measures. 

Results of the general vibration assessment indicate that vibration impacts are projected to occur at a 

distance of 169 feet from the rail line. Based on this distance, three receptors have potential to experience 

vibration impacts. There are no practical means of mitigating ground-borne vibration impacts.

Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. 

In developing the Build Alternative, considerable time was taken to avoid waters of the U.S., including 

wetlands, during the planning and preliminary design process. Impacts to wetlands and other waters have 

been minimized by modifying the alignment to the extent practicable. During the design phase, 

construction limits would be defined; construction limits are estimated to be approximately 75 feet wide, 

which would further reduce wetland impacts. 

The future Project Sponsor would be responsible for implementation of mitigation measures for 

wetlands/waters of the U.S. Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented by the contractor 

to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams, where practicable. Surface matting is an option 

that would reduce soil disturbance, and silt fencing where activities are occurring adjacent to streams would 

be implemented. Permanent impacts or conversion to uplands would be confined to the surface area 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES-7

occupied by the new rail embankment. Post-construction, temporary impact areas would be restored to preconstruction elevation, and native vegetation would be planted to re-establish native vegetation quickly. No 

conversion of wetlands or net loss habitat is anticipated from the rehabilitation/construction of the existing 

portion of the Project.

Construction of the proposed Project would require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) to authorize impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The compensatory mitigation 

requirements under Section 404 would provide for the replacement of the functions of wetlands and water 

impacted by the proposed Project. Because the proposed Project would not appreciably diminish the 

availability of functional wetlands and other waters, there would be no fragmentation of wetland vegetative 

communities. Therefore, short-term and long-term impacts would be localized and minor.

Floodplains

The Project would be designed to include features, such as bridges and culverts, so that it would not create 

over a foot of rise of flood water within the Study Area. Floodplain impacts typically require coordination 

and approval from FEMA and the local floodplain administrator(s), which include Hancock and Pearl River 

Counties. During the permitting process, FEMA and Hancock and Pearl River Counties would be contacted

for permit and review requirements for the Project.

Water Resources

No permanent impacts to water quality are anticipated as the result of the Build Alternative. Railroads 

typically do not contribute much to surface water or groundwater contamination. Localized water quality 

could be temporarily affected during construction, but use of BMPs would minimize potential water quality 

impacts. Consultation with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and EPA would 

be initiated to identify appropriate measures to minimize these impacts. 

A Section 401 Permit (Water Quality Certification) would be required from the MDEQ’s Environmental 

Permits Division, Office of Pollution Control prior to construction. Any water quality impacts would be 

mitigated as part of the 404/401 permit process.

Vegetation and Wildlife

The future Project Sponsor would be responsible for implementation of minimization and mitigation 

measures for vegetation and wildlife. BMPs would be used to the extent practicable to further reduce the 

impact to wildlife and habitat. Vegetation clearing for construction activities would be planned outside of 

migratory bird breeding season for the area. In addition, areas disturbed for stockpiling materials or 

equipment staging yards would be placed in uplands where possible and restored to pre-construction 

elevations and re-seeded with native species to re-establish the vegetation community. During construction, 

sediment run-off would be controlled near streams through the use of silt fencing and other methods to 

reduce turbidity and any potential effects on aquatic species.

Threatened and Endangered Species

For all species, construction activities could cause temporary displacement or stress. However, these 

impacts would be temporary and would return to normal levels post-construction. Also, listed species are 

typically lower in abundance than other species, so the probability of encountering and therefore affecting 

a listed species within the Project right of way is lower than other species of abundant wildlife (raccoons, 

possums, squirrels, etc.). If any of the identified threatened and endangered species were found in the right
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES-8

of way of the Build Alternative during construction, additional coordination with USFWS would be 

required.

Due to potential suitable habitat observed within the survey corridor, the Project may affect/impact, but is

not likely to adversely affect/impact, the following five federally-listed species: Louisiana quillwort, eastern 

indigo snake, red-cockaded woodpecker, wood stork, and the Florida panther. There are two state-listed 

species within the corridor having suitable habitat which are the Louisiana Black Bear and the Rainbow 

snake. No protected species were observed during field reconnaissance.

Based on the literature review conducted for this EIS, the only documented occurrence of any state or 

federally listed threatened or endangered species or candidate species within the Study Area is the statelisted rainbow snake. The rainbow snake may be adversely impacted with the conversion of wetland and 

aquatic habitats to uplands as part of the proposed construction of the rail Project. This construction may 

reduce the vegetative cover (habitat) and food source of the rainbow snake within the right of way and 

cause displacement. Potential impacts include being struck by construction equipment and vehicles when 

trying to escape its burrow/habitat, stress, and exposure to predators from lack of suitable cover.

Hazardous Waste

The Build Alternative is located within the Hancock County Bombing and Gunnery Range. As such, 

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) may pose a risk of detonation during construction. To reduce the risk of 

encountering UXO, a thorough search using metal detectors of all areas within the proposed right of way

that fall within the Hancock County Bombing and Gunnery Range, and where the soil would be disturbed 

or heavy equipment utilized, will be conducted prior to construction. In the event that a UXO is discovered, 

all activity will immediately cease; the area will be evacuated, and local authorities will be contacted to

dispatch a bomb disposal unit to the UXO location.

Transportation and Safety

In accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD), traffic control for grade crossings includes all signs, signals, markings, other warning devices, 

and their supports along highways approaching at-grade crossings. The function of this type of traffic 

control is to promote safety and provide effective operation of rail and highway traffic at grade crossings. 

Before any new highway-rail grade crossing traffic control system is installed, or before modifications are 

made to an existing system, approval will be obtained from the highway agency with the jurisdictional 

and/or statutory authority, and from the railroad company with ownership of the rail line. 1

Highway-rail grade crossing traffic control measures would be implemented in accordance with the 

MUTCD standards as part of the Project. Recommended traffic control for highway-rail at-grade crossings

would include, at a minimum, one grade crossing (crossbuck) sign on each highway approach to every 

highway-rail grade crossing, alone or in combination with other traffic control devices. The crossbuck sign

is a warning to on-coming traffic of a highway-rail grade crossing and a driver’s responsibility to yield to 

rail traffic if a train is approaching the crossings. Also, a Grade Crossing Advance Warning sign will be 

used on each highway in advance of every public highway-rail grade crossing. 

 

1

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways. 2009

Edition. Updated in 2012.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES-9

Utilities and Pipelines

Specific utility information such as pipeline depths, overhead clearances for power lines, and the location 

of utility poles within the Project right of way is unknown at this time. Project design will include utility 

surveys and subsurface utility investigations to determine the horizontal and vertical location of utility 

infrastructure. During design phase services, surveys will be conducted to identify potential utility impacts 

and potential relocations or adjustments. 

All modifications, relocations or adjustments of utilities will remain subject to coordination with the 

affected utilities. For pipelines and other underground infrastructure, Mississippi’s “One Call” underground 

utility notification service (Mississippi 811, Inc.)2 will be contacted before commencing construction 

operations. Coordination will be required to ensure that overhead and underground utilities meet American 

Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association (AREMA) standards within the proposed right of way.

Construction Impacts

Construction impacts will be controlled, minimized, or mitigated by closely adhering to applicable federal, 

state and local laws governing safety, health, and sanitation and through conformance with established 

construction methods. Most of the proposed rail alignment is located away from residential, public, and 

business structures, so construction impacts to citizens and business operations, such as noise, would be 

limited.

 

2 Mississippi 811, Inc. (http://ms1call.org/) is a non-profit organization providing underground utility notification service under Mississippi 

Code of 1972, Chapter 13, Sections 77-13-1 through 77-13-23.
This page left intentionally blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................1-1

2.0 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location and Study Area Description .............................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.1 Project Background......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 Regional Rail Dependency.............................................................................................. 2-4

2.3 Need.............................................................................................................................................. 2-5

2.3.1 Improve Rail Transport Time, Reliability and Cost........................................................ 2-5

2.3.2 Economic Opportunities.................................................................................................. 2-6

2.3.3 Flexibility and Resilience................................................................................................ 2-7

3.0 Alternative Analysis.........................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Phase 1 – Initial Alternative Development................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.1 Study Area....................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.2 Engineering Criteria ........................................................................................................ 3-2

3.1.3 Alignment Alternatives Research Tool (AART)............................................................. 3-2

3.1.4 Rail Connections............................................................................................................. 3-3

3.1.5 Data Collection................................................................................................................ 3-3

3.1.6 Initial Agency and Public Comment ............................................................................... 3-4

3.1.7 Corridor Development and Refinement Process............................................................. 3-4

3.1.8 Follow Up Agency Coordination .................................................................................... 3-6

3.1.9 Agency/Public Scoping Meeting..................................................................................... 3-9

3.2 Phase 2 - Segment Screening...................................................................................................... 3-10

3.2.1 Competing Segment Analysis....................................................................................... 3-10

3.2.2 Competing Segment Analysis Results .......................................................................... 3-25

3.2.3 Additional Considerations for the Southern Connections............................................. 3-25

3.3 Build (Preferred) Alternative...................................................................................................... 3-34

4.0 Affected Environment .....................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Key Features of the Study Area ...................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 Land Use....................................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.1 Pearl River County.......................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Hancock County.............................................................................................................. 4-6

4.3 Farmland....................................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.1 Conservation Easements ................................................................................................. 4-9

4.4 Socioeconomics............................................................................................................................ 4-9

4.4.1 Population ....................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.4.2 Age/Employment/Education ........................................................................................... 4-9

4.4.3 Income........................................................................................................................... 4-11

4.4.4 Housing ......................................................................................................................... 4-12

4.4.5 Elderly, Disabled and Youth ......................................................................................... 4-12
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ii

4.5 Environmental Justice................................................................................................................. 4-13

4.5.1 Low-Income Population................................................................................................ 4-15

4.5.1 Minority Populations..................................................................................................... 4-18

4.6 Communities and Community Facilities .................................................................................... 4-21

4.6.1 Parks and Recreation..................................................................................................... 4-21

4.6.2 Community Services..................................................................................................... 4-25

4.7 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................... 4-32

4.8 Federally Funded and Protected Public Facilities....................................................................... 4-35

4.8.1 Section 4(f).................................................................................................................... 4-36

4.8.2 Section 6(f).................................................................................................................... 4-38

4.9 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................. 4-38

4.9.1 Air Quality and Climate Change................................................................................... 4-38

4.10 Noise and Vibration.................................................................................................................... 4-39

4.10.1 Noise Descriptors.......................................................................................................... 4-39

4.10.2 Noise Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................. 4-41

4.10.3 Vibration Descriptors.................................................................................................... 4-43

4.10.4 Vibration Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................ 4-44

4.10.5 Assessment Approach ................................................................................................... 4-46

4.11 Geological Resources................................................................................................................. 4-49

4.11.1 Soils............................................................................................................................... 4-49

4.12 Wetlands..................................................................................................................................... 4-57

4.12.1 Wetlands, Streams and Other Water Bodies ................................................................. 4-57

4.12.2 Mitigation Banks........................................................................................................... 4-60

4.13 Floodplains................................................................................................................................. 4-60

4.14 Water Resources......................................................................................................................... 4-61

4.15 Habitat and Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 4-64

4.15.1 Terrain........................................................................................................................... 4-64

4.15.2 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 4-64

4.15.3 Faunal and Floral Communities.................................................................................... 4-66

4.15.4 Threatened and Endangered Species............................................................................. 4-66

4.16 Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................... 4-72

4.16.1 Hazardous Waste........................................................................................................... 4-72

4.17 Aesthetics and Visual Resources................................................................................................ 4-73

4.17.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality ....................................................................................... 4-73

4.18 Transportation............................................................................................................................. 4-73

4.18.1 Existing Port and Airport Facilities............................................................................... 4-74

4.18.2 Existing Roadway Network .......................................................................................... 4-77

4.18.3 Existing Rail Network................................................................................................... 4-82

4.18.4 Multimodal Corridors.................................................................................................... 4-84

4.19 Utilities....................................................................................................................................... 4-85

4.19.1 Underground Pipelines.................................................................................................. 4-86

4.19.2 Overhead Transmission Lines....................................................................................... 4-86

4.19.3 Wells ............................................................................................................................. 4-86

4.19.4 Water and Sewer ........................................................................................................... 4-86
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

iii

5.0 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................................5-1

5.1 Land Use....................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Farmland....................................................................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.1 Conservation Easements ................................................................................................. 5-4

5.3 Socioeconomics............................................................................................................................ 5-4

5.4 Environmental Justice................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.5 Communities and Community Facilities .................................................................................... 5-10

5.5.1 Communities................................................................................................................. 5-10

5.5.2 Parks and Recreation..................................................................................................... 5-12

5.5.3 Community Services..................................................................................................... 5-12

5.6 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................... 5-16

5.7 Federally Funded and Protected Public Facilities....................................................................... 5-19

5.7.1 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties..................................................................................... 5-19

5.8 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................. 5-21

5.9 Noise and Vibration.................................................................................................................... 5-22

5.9.1 Estimated Noise Effects................................................................................................ 5-22

5.9.2 Estimated Vibration Effects.......................................................................................... 5-25

5.9.3 Noise and Vibration Summary...................................................................................... 5-25

5.10 Geological Resources................................................................................................................. 5-27

5.11 Wetlands..................................................................................................................................... 5-27

5.11.1 Impacts to Wetlands, Streams, and Other Water Bodies............................................... 5-27

5.11.2 Coastal Zone Management............................................................................................ 5-31

5.12 Floodplains................................................................................................................................. 5-32

5.12.1 Floodplain and Floodway.............................................................................................. 5-32

5.13 Water Resources......................................................................................................................... 5-34

5.13.1 Natural Ecology Systems.............................................................................................. 5-34

5.13.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenic Streams................................................................. 5-37

5.14 Habitat and Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 5-37

5.14.1 Vegetation and Floral/Faunal Communities.................................................................. 5-37

5.14.2 Effects on Federally-Listed Species.............................................................................. 5-38

5.14.3 State-Listed Species...................................................................................................... 5-43

5.14.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Effects/Impacts Summary .................................. 5-46

5.15 Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................... 5-46

5.15.1 Rail Transport of Hazardous Materials......................................................................... 5-47

5.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources................................................................................................ 5-48

5.17 Transportation............................................................................................................................. 5-50

5.17.1 Transportations Impacts................................................................................................ 5-50

5.17.2 Build Alternative Delay Analysis at Proposed Highway-Rail 

Public At-Grade Crossings............................................................................................ 5-56

5.18 Utility Impacts............................................................................................................................ 5-61

5.19 Energy......................................................................................................................................... 5-63

5.20 Construction Impacts.................................................................................................................. 5-64

5.20.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 5-64

5.20.2 Water Quality................................................................................................................ 5-65
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

iv

5.20.3 Noise and Vibration ...................................................................................................... 5-65

5.20.4 Hazardous Materials and Construction Waste .............................................................. 5-66

5.20.5 Public Safety, Traffic, and Access ................................................................................ 5-66

5.20.6 Visual Impacts............................................................................................................... 5-67

5.20.7 Energy Consumption..................................................................................................... 5-67

5.20.8 Utility Service and Relocations..................................................................................... 5-67

5.20.9 Wildlife and Wetlands Impacts..................................................................................... 5-67

5.20.10 Cultural/Archeological Resources Encountered During Construction.......................... 5-67

5.20.11 Borrow Pits and Spoil Sites........................................................................................... 5-68

5.21 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................ 5-68

5.21.1 Land Use CEA .............................................................................................................. 5-70

5.21.2 Socioeconomic CEA ..................................................................................................... 5-71

5.21.3 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 5-73

5.21.4 Noise and Vibration CEA ............................................................................................. 5-74

5.21.5 Wetlands CEA............................................................................................................... 5-76

5.21.6 Floodplains CEA........................................................................................................... 5-77

5.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources......................................................... 5-78

5.23 Relationship Between Short-Term Impacts and Long-Term Benefits........................................ 5-79

5.24 Summary of Impacts................................................................................................................... 5-79

5.25 Required Permits and Coordination............................................................................................ 5-81

6.0 Agency and Public Involvement.....................................................................................6-1

6.1 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Plan..................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Agency Coordination.................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2.1 Phase 1 ............................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2.2 EIS Kick-off Meeting...................................................................................................... 6-2

6.2.3 Notice of Intent ............................................................................................................... 6-2

6.2.4 Agency Scoping Meeting................................................................................................ 6-2

6.2.5 Cooperating Agencies and Participating Agencies ......................................................... 6-3

6.2.6 Tribal Coordination......................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.7 Agency Coordination Meetings ...................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 Stakeholder Involvement.............................................................................................................. 6-4

6.3.1 Hancock County Ports and Harbor Commission – Update to Board Members.............. 6-4

6.3.2 Public Officials Meeting ................................................................................................. 6-4

6.4 Public Involvement....................................................................................................................... 6-4

6.4.1 Phase 1 ............................................................................................................................ 6-4

6.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting .................................................................................................. 6-5

6.4.3 Public Information Meeting ............................................................................................ 6-5

6.5 Next Steps..................................................................................................................................... 6-5

7.0 List of Preparers..............................................................................................................7-1

8.0 Distribution List...............................................................................................................8-1

9.0 Glossary ............................................................................................................................9-1
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

v

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Port Bienville Feasibility Report

APPENDIX B: Draft PBRR Cultural Resources Survey Report

APPENDIX C: Draft Wetland and TE Report

APPENDIX D: Noise Vibration Report

APPENDIX E: Wetland Index and Map Book

APPENDIX F: Modified Phase 1 ESA Report

APPENDIX G: Transportation & Public Safety Report

APPENDIX H: Agency Correspondence & Public Comments

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Project Study Area ..................................................................................................................................2-2

Figure 3.1: PBRR Connection Point..........................................................................................................................3-3

Figure 3.2: AART Run Alignments ............................................................................................................................3-5

Figure 3.3: Corridor Segments ...................................................................................................................................3-7

Figure 3.4: Potential Southern Route Combinations ..................................................................................... 3-13

Figure 3.5: Segments 6a and 6b.............................................................................................................................. 3-17

Figure 3.6: Segments 8a and 8b.............................................................................................................................. 3-20

Figure 3.7: Segments 10a and 10b ........................................................................................................................ 3-23

Figure 3.8: Alternatives A and B............................................................................................................................. 3-26

Figure 3.9: Alternative A and Alternative C....................................................................................................... 3-29

Figure 3.10: Alternative B and Alternative D.................................................................................................... 3-30

Figure 3.11: Alternatives A, B, C and D................................................................................................................ 3-32

Figure 3.12: Build Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 3-35

Figure 4.1: Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................4-2

Figure 4.2: Acoustical Buffer Zone and Land Use...............................................................................................4-5

Figure 4.3: Commute Pattern .................................................................................................................................. 4-11

Figure 4.4: Low Income Population...................................................................................................................... 4-17

Figure 4.5: Minority Population ............................................................................................................................. 4-20

Figure 4.6: Communities ........................................................................................................................................... 4-22

Figure 4.7: Park and Recreation Areas ................................................................................................................ 4-23

Figure 4.8: Schools/Churches/Cemeteries ........................................................................................................ 4-27

Figure 4.9: Medical and Emergency Services and Evacuation Routes Map.......................................... 4-30

Figure 4.10: Cultural Resources APEs.................................................................................................................. 4-33

Figure 4.11: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties.................................................................................................... 4-37

Figure 4.12: Typical Noise Levels .......................................................................................................................... 4-40

Figure 4.13: FRA/FTA Noise Impact Criteria.................................................................................................... 4-42

Figure 4.14: Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by FTA/FRA Criteria............................. 4-43

Figure 4.15: Typical Vibration Levels and Responses................................................................................... 4-44

Figure 4.16: Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves....................................................................... 4-49
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

vi

Figure 4.17: Soils Map ................................................................................................................................................ 4-52

Figure 4.18: Wetlands Map....................................................................................................................................... 4-59

Figure 4.19: Floodplain Map.................................................................................................................................... 4-62

Figure 4.20: Port Bienville Industrial Park and Port Bienville Railroad ............................................... 4-74

Figure 4.21: Regional Transportation Infrastructure ................................................................................... 4-75

Figure 4.22: Transportation Network.................................................................................................................. 4-78

Figure 4.23: U.S. Highway 11 At-Grade Crossing (view looking northbound).................................... 4-81

Figure 4.24: U.S. Highway 11 At-Grade Crossing (view looking southbound).................................... 4-81

Figure 4.25: Texas Flat Road At-Grade Crossing (view looking westbound)...................................... 4-81

Figure 4.26: Existing Norfolk Southern Right of Way and Railroad Track between 

Nicholson and SSC............................................................................................................................... 4-83

Figure 4.27: Pipeline and Transmission Line Crossings .............................................................................. 4-87

Figure 5.1: Land Use Impacts .....................................................................................................................................5-2

Figure 5.2: Low-Income Population.........................................................................................................................5-7

Figure 5.3: Minority Population ................................................................................................................................5-9

Figure 5.4: Communities and Community Facilities ...................................................................................... 5-11

Figure 5.5: Cultural Resources APEs .................................................................................................................... 5-18

Figure 5.6: Newly Recorded Architectural Sites................................................................................................... 5-20

Figure 5.7: General Assessment Noise Contours............................................................................................. 5-23

Figure 5.8: General Assessment Vibration Contours ..................................................................................... 5-26

Figure 5.9: Wetland Index Map............................................................................................................................... 5-28

Figure 5.10: Stabilizer Pipes and Leveler Spreader ....................................................................................... 5-31

Figure 5.11: Floodplain Impacts............................................................................................................................. 5-33

Figure 5.12: Proposed Grade Crossings along Project Alignment............................................................ 5-51

Figure 5.13: Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossing Signage................................................................................. 5-54

Figure 5.14: Highway-Rail Crossing Signage and On-street Pavement Marking Example ............ 5-55

Figure 5.15: Gas Line Crossings.............................................................................................................................. 5-62
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Transportation Dependence Rating of Hancock County’s Top Industries .........................2-4

Table 3.1: GIS Data for PBRR Study Area...............................................................................................................3-3

Table 3.2: Corridor Segments.....................................................................................................................................3-8

Table 3.3: Comparison Matrix for Southern Combined Segments........................................................... 3-15

Table 3.4: Comparison Matrix for Segments 6a and 6b................................................................................ 3-18

Table 3.5: Comparison Matrix for Segments 8a and 8b................................................................................ 3-21

Table 3.6: Comparison Matrix for Segments 10a and 10b .......................................................................... 3-24

Table 3.7: Segments within Southern Alternatives ........................................................................................ 3-27

Table 3.8: Southern Options Comparison Matrix............................................................................................ 3-33

Table 4.1: Hancock and Pearl River Counties Land Use Categories ...........................................................4-6

Table 4.2: Pearl River County Farmlands within the Study Area 

(Prime/Statewide Importance)........................................................................................................4-8

Table 4.3: Hancock County Farmlands Within the Study Area 

(Prime/Statewide Importance)........................................................................................................4-8

Table 4.4: Population Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 4-10

Table 4.5: Elderly, Disabled and Youth Populations within the Study Area ........................................ 4-12

Table 4.6: Low-Income Data .................................................................................................................................... 4-15

Table 4.7: Low-Income Data by Block Group – Income in 2013 Below Poverty Level.................... 4-16

Table 4.8: Minority Data ............................................................................................................................................ 4-18

Table 4.9: Minority Populations by Block Group ............................................................................................ 4-19

Table 4.10: Communities........................................................................................................................................... 4-21

Table 4.11: Hancock County Parks and Recreation Areas........................................................................... 4-24

Table 4.12: Public Schools Within or Adjacent to Study Area.................................................................... 4-26

Table 4.13: Churches and Cemeteries in Study Area..................................................................................... 4-28

Table 4.14: Public Government Facilities........................................................................................................... 4-28

Table 4.15: Law Enforcement and Fire Departments ................................................................................... 4-29

Table 4.16: Summary of Local Air Quality Monitoring Data....................................................................... 4-39

Table 4.17: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Noise Impact Criteria............................................... 4-41

Table 4.18: Land Use Categories for Transit Vibration Impact Criteria ................................................ 4-44

Table 4.19: Ground-borne Vibration and Ground-borne Noise Impact Thresholds ........................ 4-45

Table 4.20: Pearl River County Soils Summary................................................................................................ 4-50

Table 4.21: Hancock County Soils Summary..................................................................................................... 4-50

Table 4.22: Impaired Water Bodies within the Study Area ........................................................................ 4-63

Table 4.23: Dominant Vegetation Types............................................................................................................. 4-64

Table 4.24: Evaluation of T&E Species in the Survey Corridor ................................................................. 4-68

Table 4.25: Existing Roadway Functional Classification.............................................................................. 4-79

Table 4.26: Existing Highway-Rail Grade Crossings along NS Rail Alignment.................................... 4-80

Table 4.27: Underground Pipeline Crossings ................................................................................................... 4-86

Table 5.1: Low-Income Data by Block Group – Income in 2013 Below Poverty Level.......................5-6

Table 5.2: Minorities Populations by Block Group ............................................................................................5-8

Table 5.3: Archaeological Sites ............................................................................................................................... 5-17

Table 5.4: Newly Documented Historic Resources......................................................................................... 5-19
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

viii

Table 5.5: Wayside Noise Impact Distances ...................................................................................................... 5-22

Table 5.6: Locomotive Horn Noise Impact Contour Dimensions.............................................................. 5-24

Table 5.7: Noise Analysis Results........................................................................................................................... 5-24

Table 5.8: Vibration Impacts.................................................................................................................................... 5-25

Table 5.9: Resources Potentially Impacted by the Proposed Project - Rehabilitation of 

Existing NS RR and Construction of New Rail ......................................................................... 5-29

Table 5.10: Floodplain Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 5-34

Table 5.11: Effects on Listed Federal Species with Potential Suitable Habitat in the 

Survey Corridor ................................................................................................................................... 5-38

Table 5.12: Effects on Listed State Species with Potential Suitable Habitat in the 

Survey Corridor ................................................................................................................................... 5-44

Table 5.13: New Public Roadway Crossings of the Proposed Project .................................................... 5-49

Table 5.14: Proposed Grade Crossings along Project Alignment ............................................................. 5-52

Table 5.15: Proposed Traffic Control Measures at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings .......................... 5-56

Table 5.16: Operational Parameters at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings ................................................ 5-57

Table 5.17: Grade Crossing Projected Average Daily Traffic Volume Data (2020 and 2040)...... 5-59

Table 5.18: Projected Rail Car Volumes with Dual Class I Rail Service.................................................. 5-59

Table 5.19: Distribution of Projected Daily Rail Car Volumes by Class I Railroad 

(one-way only)..................................................................................................................................... 5-60

Table 5.20: Summary of Impacts and Costs....................................................................................................... 5-80

Table 5.21: Impacts/Actions Requiring Permits and/or Approvals ....................................................... 5-82
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Signed into law on January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 established a 

national environmental policy and a framework for considering the environment in decision-making for 

Federal actions. NEPA applies to Federal government activities and it requires all Federal agencies to:

▪ assess the environmental impacts of major Federal projects or decisions such as issuing permits, 

spending Federal money, or affecting Federal lands;

▪ consider the environmental impacts when making decisions; and

▪ disclose the environmental impacts to the public.

NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality, which oversees NEPA for all Federal 

agencies. CEQ developed regulations for implementing the law (Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR §§ 1500-08)). These regulations 

require all Federal agencies to write their own regulations for implementing NEPA.

NEPA's basic policy is to assure that all branches of government give proper consideration to the 

environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that significantly affects the environment. An 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a document that “shall provide full and fair discussion of 

significant environmental impacts and shall inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable 

alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human 

environment.1 An EIS considers the purpose and need for the action, reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action, including "no action," relevant environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures.2 An EIS 

is required when a proposed action could significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

More information on NEPA can be found through the CEQ publication “A Citizen’s Guide to NEPA”, 

which is an informational guide that provides an explanation of NEPA, how it is implemented and how the 

public can participate in the assessment of environmental impacts conducted by Federal agencies.3 This can 

be found on the CEQ’s website at: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/publications/citizens_guide_to_nepa.html.

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and 

Hancock County Ports and Harbor Commission (HCPHC) have prepared this Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) in accordance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA) and FRA’s 

Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts.

4

Currently, there is no funding or Project Sponsor identified for construction of the Project. If FRA funding 

is used to construct the Project, FRA would require the future Project Sponsor to comply with the 

commitments and mitigation measures outlined in this document.

 

1 40 CFR 1502.1

2 https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-national-environmental-policy-act, accessed 9/25/17

3 https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/get-involved/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf, accessed 9/25/17

4 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)
This page left intentionally blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2-1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

The MDOT, FRA and the HCPHC are preparing this DEIS to evaluate a proposed new freight rail line that 

would provide a single-track, direct connection between the Port Bienville Railroad (PBRR) and the 

Norfolk Southern (NS) rail line near Interstate 59 (I-59), north of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration’s (NASA) John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”). 

Port Bienville is currently served by one Class I rail connection, CSX Transportation (CSX). The Project 

would provide connection to a second Class I rail line for Port Bienville and the Port Bienville Industrial 

Park.

2.1 Project Location and Study Area Description

The Project is located in the southwestern portion of the state of Mississippi and encompasses a portion of 

Hancock and Pearl River Counties. The “Study Area” is generally bound by (the communities of) Nicholson 

and Kiln to the north, Port Bienville to the south, the Pearl River to the west, and Stennis International 

Airport and Airpark and State Road (SR) 603/43 to the east, representing a study area of approximately 231

square miles (see Figure 2.1) (hereinafter referred to as the “Study Area”).

The Study Area is bisected by I-10, while I-59 passes through a small portion of the Study Area to the north. 

Other major features within the Study Area include wetlands, wetland mitigation banks, forests, open pit 

sand mines, SSC, and a 125,000-acre acoustical buffer zone (buffer zone) surrounding the SSC that is used 

for testing of large-scale rocket engines and components. This acoustical buffer makes up the majority of 

the Study Area and restricts development of this large area of land outside SSC. The two major facilities 

and key economic factors within the Study Area are Port Bienville Industrial Park and NASA’s SSC. 

Port Bienville Industrial Park – Port Bienville is a shallow twelve-foot deep draft barge port in southwest 

Mississippi, located off the Intracoastal Waterway near mile marker 24 on Mullatto Bayou in Hancock 

County. It is one of four ports serving Mississippi’s gulf coast. The Port Bienville property encompasses 

approximately 3,600 acres, including the Port Bienville airport facility, industrial park, and the port. 

Approximately 800 people are employed at the companies located in the Port Bienville Industrial Park.5

The barge port has six employees and the Port Bienville Railroad employs eight people.6 Seven companies 

are engaged in manufacturing and research and development involving plastics, chemicals, and metals. 

Both raw materials including coal, sheet steel, and chemicals and finished materials such as polymers and 

plastics pellets, steel pipe, beams, and specialty fabricated metals are shipped via the port.7 Three businesses 

at the park provide logistics services including shipping and warehousing, and one is part of a large 

nationwide firm that leases and repairs rail cars.

 

5 2012 interviews with Port Bienville Industrial Park businesses and information from Hancock Port and Harbor Commission for the Port 

Bienville Railroad Economic Feasibility and Economic Development Benefits and Opportunities Analysis

6

Employment figures provided by Beau Gex, Government and Industrial Relations Manager, Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission on 

November 23, 2015.

7

From interviews with firms at Stennis and Port Bienville Business Parks and Port Bienville Rail Road in September and October 2012.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2-2

Figure 2.1: Project Study Area
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2-3

Several businesses within the industrial park are currently major rail users, relying on rail for both incoming 

raw materials and outbound shipments. Companies also use a combination of the modes available within 

the park: truck, rail, and barge. Several businesses receive products that come by container ship, often to 

the Port of New Orleans, and then the product travels to or from Port Bienville by rail, barge, or truck to 

the Port of New Orleans. A number of companies in the industrial park currently export finished goods to 

international customers in Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Panama, and Canada.

John C. Stennis Space Center – For more than four decades, SSC in Hancock County has served as 

NASA’s primary rocket propulsion testing ground. Today, SSC has evolved into a multidisciplinary facility 

that includes NASA research facilities and other resident agencies engaged in space and environmental 

programs and national defense, including the U.S. Navy’s oceanographic research community. It provides 

propulsion test services to NASA, the Department of Defense, and the private sector. SSC is home to

NASA’s Rocket Propulsion Test Program, which manages all of the agency’s propulsion test facilities. 

Approximately 5,000 people work at the SSC.8 

The SSC includes propulsion test facilities, a canal system, and the 125,000-acre acoustical buffer zone that 

surrounds SSC, which provide testing locations for large-scale rocket engines and components. 

Development within the acoustical buffer zone is governed by development restrictions purchased by the 

Federal Government. Some of the land within the buffer zone was purchased by the government, but the 

majority of this property remains in private ownership subject to development restrictions that do not allow 

any inhabitable buildings within the buffer area. 

2.2 Purpose

Freight transportation represents a key competitiveness factor for Hancock County. Businesses today 

compete on the basis of product quality, timeliness, and cost. The transportation network that serves their 

facilities must provide reliable connections to customers and access to a multitude of markets, ensure timely 

deliveries of goods and services, and provide access for employees and customers. The purpose of the 

Project is to provide dual Class I access to the Port Bienville Industrial Park to support the access needs, 

reliability and competitiveness of its tenants and other industries in the area. 

2.2.1 Project Background 

Mississippi’s waterborne transportation is a critical component to the state’s economy, as identified through 

MDOT’s long-range planning in the 2035 MULTIPLAN.

9 Port Bienville is a shallow draft barge port and 

is one of four ports serving Mississippi’s gulf coast. The Port Bienville Industrial Park and PBRR provide 

intermodal connections to support surface transportation freight movement from Port Bienville. 

CSX and NS both provide Class I rail service to markets east of the Mississippi River. PBRR provides 

shippers at the industrial park with an existing connection to CSX on the shortline railroad east of the 

industrial park; however, there is no existing connection to the NS line, which is located in the northwest 

section of the Study Area. 

 

8 https://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/pdf/626857main_2012-Mission

9 Mississippi’s Unified Long‐Range Transportation Infrastructure Plan, Final Report May 2011, MDOT
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2-4

The Project received an earmark in the amount of $2.16 million in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)10 in 2005. 

In 2013, the Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study, completed during Phase 1, was prepared for the Project 

to determine the potential economic benefits of the proposed railroad and to evaluate initial corridors for 

that railroad. Phase 1 concluded that the construction of the rail line would bring economic benefits to 

Hancock County; in addition, initial alternatives were developed and feasible segments were 

recommended for further consideration in the Feasibility Study. The Phase 1 study reports included the 

Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study, Port Bienville Economic Development Benefits and Opportunities 

Analysis, and the Port Bienville Rail Alternatives Development Technical Methodology. These 

documents can be found in Appendix A or on MDOT’s website at: 

http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/Environmental%20Projects/Port%20of%20Bienville%20(Hancock

%20County)/Port%20Bienville%20Feasibility%20%20Report.pdf.

At the initiation of Phase 2, the EIS, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on June

2, 2015.11

2.2.2 Regional Rail Dependency

The Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission identified four major growth sectors for the community: 

aerospace and aviation, cargo-oriented development, polymers and advanced composite materials, and 

geospatial technology. Transportation research data indicates that most of these industries are highly 

dependent on freight rail service, as shown in Table 2.1. Relating these existing and emerging businesses 

to the transportation dependence of their associated business sectors underscores the critical relationship 

between Hancock County’s economy and multimodal transportation network.

Table 2.1: Transportation Dependence Rating of Hancock County’s Top Industries

Industry Sector Highways Freight Rail Waterways/ 

Ports Air

Transportation 

Cost per 

Dollar of Output

Aerospace & Aviation High High High High 9%

Cargo-Oriented Development High High High Medium 9%

Polymers & 

Composite Materials High High Medium Low 9%

Geospatial Technology High Medium Low High 6.5%

The proposed rail connection would provide existing businesses access to dual Class I rail service, 

improving transit times and reliability of deliveries to customers. Dual Class I rail access would enable 

Hancock and Pearl River Counties to better serve existing industries and attract new industries to this region 

that require this level of rail service, creating new quality jobs and investment to help this area to continue 

to recover from recent disasters that have significantly affected their economies. 

 

10 FHWA/ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/, accessed 9/25/17

11 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Notices – Federal Railroad Administration, Environmental Impact Statement 

for Port Bienville Railroad Project
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2-5

2.3 Need

Providing dual Class I access to the Port Bienville Industrial Park project would address the following 

needs:

▪ Improve rail transport time, reliability and cost;

▪ Foster greater economic opportunities and attract new industries to Hancock and Pearl River 

Counties; 

▪ Create flexibility and resilience in rail transportation options during storms and other emergencies. 

2.3.1 Improve Rail Transport Time, Reliability and Cost

Companies within the Port Bienville Industrial Park depend upon reliable transportation services to meet 

their customer’s delivery and production schedules, and on competitive transportation rates to keep their 

customers’ business. Reliability and speed to market were determined to be critical factors of 

competitiveness for 85 percent of these businesses based on the Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study.

At present, rail freight bound for Port Bienville must travel to the Gentilly Switching Yard in New Orleans,

where trains are reconfigured for specific destinations, and then be back-hauled to Port Bienville. This 

additional time and distance increases the cost of rail transport. The Gentilly Yard is also often congested. 

It is not unusual for cars to take at least seven days to move from the Gentilly Yard back to Port Bienville, 

and transit times as long as 28 days were reported by Port Bienville Industrial Park rail users. This is more 

than an inconvenience; in the past, one Port Bienville Industrial Park business had to hire hundreds of trucks 

to offload a rail shipment in order to avoid a customer penalty for late delivery, and another business faced

a plant shutdown when raw materials were held up.12 Local businesses must consider timeliness of 

deliveries and reliability, as their customers’ value transit time and predictability of shipments.

Dual Class I rail service would offer options to utilize two independent rail networks, potentially bypassing 

Gentilly Yard, thereby improving reliability and reducing rail delivery times to a number of strategic 

markets for existing and potential businesses in Hancock and Pearl River counties. 

For those who ship or receive heavy or oversized materials, or who receive or ship large quantities, freight 

rail can be much more cost effective than other modes, including trucking. A study of U.S. chemical 

producers (a significant industrial sector in the Port Bienville Industrial Park) found that average rail 

shipping rates for captive production facilities (providing connection to only one Class I rail service)13 were 

30 percent higher than non-captive facilities when considering comparable volumes, distances, and 

services.14 In addition to reliability of service, providing dual Class I rail service to Port Bienville would 

also result in competitive pricing that would lower rail transportation costs. 

Existing and potential businesses would benefit from the transportation savings and improved 

transportation services that historically are realized with access to two Class I railroads. Dual Class I rail 

service would improve delivery time to customers and reduce potential delays to certain key markets, and 

has the potential to reduce transportation costs by up to 30 percent. Improvements in transportation costs 

 

12 Port Bienville Rail Economic Feasibility Study: Economic Benefits and Opportunities Analysis, Mississippi Department of Transportation, 

2013

13 Captive rail facilities are those with access to only one Class I rail service provider.

14 Veris Consulting for the American Chemistry Council. 2012. “Analysis of Freight Rail Rates for Chemical Shippers.”
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2-6

and services would substantially affect a company’s profitability. Lower transportation costs and more 

reliable freight rail service would help reduce the cost of materials, and thus overall production costs. 

Reliable delivery of materials would enhance productivity, reduce distribution costs to the consumer, and 

may also improve their competitiveness. 

2.3.2 Economic Opportunities

The economic prosperity of Hancock County and south Mississippi depends upon the businesses and 

industries within the region, and the ability to meet their unique requirements for workforce, land, 

transportation, utilities, and other services. Transportation factors, such as accessibility to highways, 

airport, port and railroad services, along with other competitive conditions including the availability of land 

and buildings, occupancy and construction costs, corporate tax rates, incentives, and labor costs, influence 

the site decisions that businesses make when locating, expanding, or consolidating operations. While 

freight rail transportation alone would not foster economic growth, improved freight services and 

connectivity, multi-modal transportation services, and competitive costs can significantly differentiate the 

region’s economic environment, providing opportunities to attract and retain businesses and jobs for 

Hancock County and the region in the future. 

Access to dual Class I rail service is a critical factor for economic competitiveness for existing businesses, 

and it is a significant factor for many companies considering sites for new or expanded business operations. 

Industrial parks providing dual Class I rail services are a scarce resource in the U.S., and for certain 

significant industrial locations access to dual rail service is imperative; these sites are considered the “crown 

jewel” in the industrial development profession.15 Access to two Class I railroads would position Hancock 

County and Port Bienville in this elite group of industrial parks. 

In addition, the need for dual Class I rail service to improve freight mobility was reiterated by business 

owners and managers at both Port Bienville Industrial Park and Stennis International Airport and 

Airpark16 when they were interviewed in 2012 during the development of the Port Bienville Rail 

Feasibility Study (see Appendix A). Several Port Bienville Industrial Park tenant owners and managers 

noted their plans for expansion would hinge on the availability of dual Class I rail service. 

The most significant long term economic development benefits and opportunities resulting from this rail 

connector would be generated from new employment and additional investment in plant and equipment by 

existing businesses, and the location of new companies that require or would benefit from access to dual 

Class I rail services. The new rail line would be directly accessible to the Port Bienville Industrial Park, 

which has over 3,000 available acres available for future industrial development in addition to the existing 

rail users already in operation in this industrial park.

Hancock County has over 6,600 acres of industrial land available for lease or sale and has identified 1,500 

acres for future industrial development. Industries in both Hancock and Pearl River Counties could access 

the new rail line via the transload facility17 or through truck-rail intermodal operations.

 

15 Mark Sweeney, McCallum Sweeney Group, IEDC Industrial Site Location Panel 2010

16Stennis Airpark is a 1,800 acre business park adjacent to Stennis International Airport. Some of this property is accessible to the airport’s 

8,500 foot runway that can accommodate the largest cargo plane currently in use internationally. 

17 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/transloading.asp; accessed 8/10/2017
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2-7

With this substantial industrial land inventory and access to dual Class I rail services directly or via spurs, 

Hancock County could meet the site location requirements of a significant number of the mega-projects 

and major industrial facilities that have located in the U.S. over the past ten years.

For additional information regarding economic benefits related to the Project see the Port Bienville 

Economic Development Benefits and Opportunities Analysis in Appendix A.

2.3.3 Flexibility and Resilience

The connection to CSX is along the coast and serves as a primary east/west rail connection; there is currently 

no north/south rail connection at the Port Bienville Industrial Park site. Traversing the Gulf Coast, this

existing CSX rail line is located within the storm surge zone and has experienced significant service 

disruptions in the past due to natural disasters (lasting up to six months), thereby limiting intermodal 

connections into and out of the Port and resulting in rail closures in the wake of these events. 

In a future hazard event or disaster, the proposed rail line connection would provide significant 

improvement in rail transportation resilience for this coastal region by enabling existing rail carriers to 

position equipment and material out of harm’s way and allowing businesses in the industrial park to 

strategically deploy equipment and materials, enabling operations to restart more quickly after an event.
This page left intentionally blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-1

3.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

The alternative selection process for any transportation facility begins with the development and 

quantification of a “universe” of preliminary alternatives that are further refined to provide a range of 

feasible alternatives that best solve a project’s purpose, needs, and objectives. For this Project, a two-phase 

process was used to achieve the identification and evaluation of preliminary alternatives, selection of 

reasonable alternatives, and the recommendation of a build alternative. The first phase of the Project was 

the development of a Feasibility Study (Phase 1);

18 this phase initiated the NEPA process and included 

establishment of a Study Area, development of engineering criteria, creation of a range of alternatives, and 

development of preliminary cost estimates to determine the feasibility of the Project. The alternatives

screening and selection process during Phase 1 incorporated geographic information systems (GIS), an 

automated corridor analysis tool called the Alignment Alternatives Research Tool (AART), limited field 

reconnaissance and data validation, and engineering design criteria. All reviews and evaluations were 

conducted by the Project team which consists of scientists, planners, and engineers. The process also 

incorporated state and federal agency input, public and other stakeholder comments and concerns, as well 

as consideration of previous studies. At the end of Phase 1, a range of reasonable alternative segments were

defined and progressed into Phase 2 of Project development. 

The goal for Phase 2 was the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed 

action. A key milestone in the EIS process is the identification of a range of reasonable alternatives to be 

evaluated. The alternatives analysis process was iterative in nature, providing a continuous quantification 

and comparison of impacts to all resources at an equal level of detail at each stage of the analyses and 

refinement. Impact comparisons were determined for the various alternative segments based on design 

criteria, cost, and other considerations throughout the alternative analysis.

The No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or improvements to existing rail lines 

in the Study Area would not occur. There are no planned/proposed improvements to the existing Port 

Bienville shortline rail line, therefore no changes would be made to this line under the No-Build Alternative. 

The No-Build alternative would not provide a connection to the Norfolk Southern (NS) rail line and 

therefore, would not provide dual Class I service to Port Bienville or the Port Bienville Industrial Park. The 

No-Build Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need for the project but is brought forward for further 

analysis and evaluation under NEPA to serve as the basis for comparison of the environmental impacts 

associated with the Build Alternative.

 

18 Port Bienville Rail Alternatives Development Technical Methodology Report, September 19, 2013
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-2

3.1 Phase 1 – Initial Alternative Development

3.1.1 Study Area

The Study Area, in general, encompasses a portion of Hancock and Pearl River Counties. The Study Area

is bounded by the community of Nicholson to the north, Port Bienville Industrial Park to the south, the 

Pearl River to the west, and Stennis International Airport and the community of Kiln to the east, 

representing a Study Area of approximately 231 square miles. The proposed railway corridor is expected 

to be approximately 24 miles in length, and extends from Nicolson to Port Bienville where it connects to 

the PBRR.

3.1.2 Engineering Criteria

To meet engineering requirements for this type of railroad, a horizontal curve of three degrees thirty minutes 

(1,637 feet) was used for the initial corridors. This minimum curve radius corresponds to a travel speed of 

49 miles per hour.

3.1.3 Alignment Alternatives Research Tool (AART)

The initial selection of alternatives included the use of an automated tool to assist and accelerate the 

identification and evaluation of the preliminary alternatives. The AART is a series of GIS-based spatial 

analysis functions designed to route conceptual alignments among the various natural and human resources 

within a project Study Area. The tool is capable of running numerous alignment scenarios to produce 

alternatives that avoid and minimize impacts on the natural and human environment. The AART is 

combined with field reconnaissance and data validation, engineering design criteria, and review by the 

Project team to identify and efficiently evaluate many preliminary alternatives within a large Study Area.

The alternatives were developed through a simple “avoidance and minimization” approach. This approach 

allowed the Project team, which includes experts in various fields, to assess resources within the Project

boundaries efficiently. Sensitive site-specific resources can be set as “avoids”, and weighted values (1-9) 

are given for other types of resources that have been mapped to the grid cells in the Study Area. The tool 

routes alignments between user-selected endpoints through an artificial “terrain” comprised of areas of 

value and unique site-specific resources. Areas that have been set as “avoids” are automatically avoided

while locating a path that minimizes impacts to the remaining resources based on their weighted values. 

The AART program allows users to interactively weight geographic features and attributes collected from 

public and project‐derived databases. Individual data layers are assigned sensitivity rankings to provide 

criteria for the AART to create a path of least impact. Areas with lower sensitivity rankings are used over

areas with higher sensitivity rankings. The desired corridor width is then applied, and the environmental

and cultural impacts of the corridor are calculated. The AART is used to summarize the impacts for each 

alternative alignment and display a potential alignment for each model run. In summary, the “corridors” 

are developed through a simple “opportunities and constraints” approach. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-3

3.1.4 Rail Connections

During Phase 1, it was deemed prudent to consider two 

possible tie-in locations along the PBRR. Two tie-in 

locations would provide an alternative route in the event 

that constraints and/or significant concerns from an 

agency or tribal consultation were identified at one 

location. 

In moving forward with the Phase 2 analysis, this same 

philosophy carries through the comparison of segments. 

The first connection point with PBRR include Segments 

2a, 2b and 2c, which are located approximately 1.64 miles 

east of the entrance to the Port Bienville Industrial Park. 

The second connection point with PBRR is located 

approximately 2.64 miles east of the entrance to the Port 

Bienville Industrial Park and begins as Segment 1a (see 

Figure 3.1).

3.1.5 Data Collection

To create a complete picture of the Study Area, generate the best corridor locations, and calculate accurate 

impacts, it was necessary to compile GIS data for the Study Area in the following categories:

natural/environmental features, cultural and man-made features, and infrastructure (see Table 3.1). Most 

of the datasets were downloaded from the Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS) 

website (http://www.maris.state.ms.U.S./). Historical data was obtained from the Mississippi Department 

of Archives and History (MDAH) through the Department’s website.

Table 3.1: GIS Data for PBRR Study Area

Natural/Environmental Features Man-Made/Cultural Features Infrastructure

▪ Wetlands (fill and shading 

impacts)

▪ Mitigation Banks

▪ Streams

▪ 303(d) Streams

▪ Threatened & Endangered 

Species

▪ Haz Mat/CERCLA sites

▪ Archaeological sites

▪ Known Historic sites

▪ Farmlands

▪ Mines

▪ Bombing ranges

▪ Parks & Wildlife Refuges

▪ Water wells

▪ Transmissions lines

▪ Gas lines

▪ Road crossings

Because the Study Area contains the Stennis Space Center (SSC), it was also necessary to submit a Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain GIS data for areas inside the SSC boundaries. Current aerial 

photography for the Study Area was provided by the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Data for source water protection areas (SWPAs) were obtained through a direct request from the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). This data was deemed more accurate and current than the 

source water data available from the MARIS website. As there was not a single comprehensive source for 

wetland information, the data for this layer was compiled from three sources: the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), MARIS, and Wetlands Solutions LLC. The USACE and Wetland Solutions LLC also 

Figure 3.1: PBRR Connection Point
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-4

provided data for proposed wetland mitigation banks. Except for the mines data, all of the GIS data were 

preexisting. Although there are a significant number of mines in the Study Area, there was no readily 

available GIS data layer showing their locations. The only available mine information was a list of mine 

locations containing township and range information obtained from the MDEQ. By using the list of mines, 

a township and range layer, a parcel layer and aerial photography, a new mines layer was created.

3.1.6 Initial Agency and Public Comment

Initial Agency Coordination 

On August 23, 2012, a meeting was conducted with various federal and state agencies to review the 

methodology proposed to develop the alternatives, and to allow input from the agencies on ranking the 

various resources. Agency involvement in ranking the various resources provided input criteria for the 

AART to create paths of least impact. In general, areas with lower sensitivity rankings are used over areas 

with higher sensitivity rankings. Although the tool attempts to utilize the lower‐ranked areas as much as 

possible, it also tries to minimize the overall length of the path/corridor. In some cases, the AART may 

impact a few acres of highly ranked areas if the overall impacts of the path are less than those areas that 

were avoided. For more information on the ranking process, refer to the Port Bienville Rail Alternatives 

Development Technical Methodology Report, September 19, 2013 in Appendix A.

Public Meeting October 16, 2012

A Public Information Meeting was held on October 16, 2012 from 5:00 – 7:00 p.m. in Bay St. Louis, MS 

at the St. Louis Public Library. The meeting was hosted by MDOT in cooperation with HCPHC, and was 

conducted in an open house format which invited the public to comment on the Feasibility Study for PBRR. 

The Project team provided graphic displays showing the Study Area, wetlands, parcels, constraint mapping, 

and locations of the existing rail lines within the Study Area. The Project team answered questions about 

the Project and provided comment sheets for the attendees to provide input on the Project. Forty people 

attended the meeting. A total of four comments were received, all in favor of the Project.

3.1.7 Corridor Development and Refinement Process

AART Runs

In developing the range of feasible alternatives, the AART was used to create approximately 90 alignments 

through the Study Area. Impacts were summarized based on 1,000‐foot wide corridors. The impacts within 

these 1,000‐foot wide corridors and the initial cost estimates were used for comparing one alternative to 

another at a high level for further refinement. See Figure 3.2.

Refinement of the Alternative Corridors

Once the initial AART-developed alternative corridors were identified, the refinement process began. Early 

on, quite a few corridors were eliminated from further study for various reasons that are documented in the 

Port Bienville Rail Alternatives Development Technical Methodology Report, September 19, 2013 (see 

Appendix A).

After the initial elimination of infeasible alternatives, 12 alternatives remained for further refinement (see 

Figure 3.2). By using the standard fixed-width corridors and the irregular corridor zones generated by 

AART, the Project team made slight adjustments to the alignments to meet the engineering design criteria 

for the proposed rail line. The AART also generates irregular corridor zones which depict the percentage 

impact variance from the absolute “best fit” line (in other words, the “next-best” corridors).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-5

Figure 3.2: AART Run Alignments
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-6

The Project team engineers identified 14 manual alignments for consideration taking into account these 

“next best” corridors. These new alignments were developed with the intent to minimize impacts to the 

environment while meeting the design criteria. These engineered alignments were then used to generate 

new 1,000-foot corridors. A new set of corridor impact reports were generated and initial cost estimates for 

each corridor were prepared. This information was compiled in a matrix format. Impacts were summarized 

based on the 1,000-foot wide corridors. The impacts within these wide corridors and the initial cost 

estimates for the engineered alignments were used for comparing one alternative to another (see Port 

Bienville Rail Alternatives Development Technical Methodology Report, September 19, 2013,

Appendix A). 

Once the corridor matrix was completed and alternatives were compared, one primary corridor centrally 

located within the Study Area emerged as the least costly and least impactful. However, two distinct 

corridors on the north end of the Project were identified and four corridors on the southern end were 

identified. See Figure 3.3.

3.1.8 Follow Up Agency Coordination

A second agency coordination meeting was held on December 18, 2012, with resource and regulatory 

agencies. Representatives from MDOT, FRA, and HCPHC were also in attendance. The Project team 

provided a summary of the previous meeting and presented the results of the potential impacts associated 

with the alternative corridors identified, including the criteria followed to analyze and refine the corridor

alignments. 

The meeting presented the initially identified corridors, refinements made to the corridors, and the 

recommended alternatives along with the impact matrix used during the refinement process (see Port 

Bienville Rail Alternatives Development Technical Methodology Report, September 19, 2013 in Appendix 

A). The recommended alternative alignments had common segments that made up much of the alignments. 

However, there were four areas identified as having competing segments. Two of these areas were located 

north of I-10 and the remaining two were located south of U.S. Highway 90. At the conclusion of this 

meeting, a recommendation was made to divide the alternatives into segments for future analysis and for 

the completion of the feasibility study.

The Project team divided the advanced corridors into segments as identified in Table 3.2 and shown in 

Figure 3.3. These 17 segments represent a possible combination of 40 potential corridors. Following the 

development of the segments, the Project team re-quantified impacts and cost by segment. Additionally, 

the costs estimates were further refined by considering anticipated bridging of streams and high value 

wetlands. These costs estimates are considered all-inclusive and represent potential “implementation costs”,

including costs for final design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, and inspection services. The cost 

estimates are based on the conceptual engineered alignments within each refined corridor. Unit costs were 

based on 2015 data derived from other similar freight rail construction projects.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-7

Figure 3.3: Corridor Segments
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-8

Table 3.2: Corridor Segments

Segments

Competing 

Segments 

(Y/N)

Description

SOUTHERN SEGMENTS (Below IH 10)

Segment 1a Yes

Segment 1a begins at the Port Bienville Railroad (PBRR) tracks extending north with what 

would become the southern terminus of the new location rail line. Segment 1a starts 

approximately 2.64 miles east of where Lower Bay Road crosses the PBRR tracks. Segment 

1a extends north and crosses Old Lower Bay Road approximately 0.2 mile east of a 

mine/quarry site. Once it crosses Old Lower Bay Road, Segment 1a connects to segment 1b.

Segment 1b Yes Segment 1b extends from Segment 1a in a northwesterly direction paralleling an 

unimproved roadbed. Segment 1b then connects to Segment 3.

Segment 2a Yes

Segment 2a begins at the PBRR short line, but 1 mile closer to the Port Bienville Industrial 

Park. Segment 2a extends north for approximately 1 mile, then turns northeast and crosses 

Old Lower Bay Road, then turns northwest to connect to Segment 3.

Segment 2b Yes

Segment 2b also begins at the PBRR short line, closer to the Port Bienville Industrial Park. 

Segment 2b extends north for approximately 1.5 miles. After crossing Old Lower Bay Road, 

the segment turns northeast for 0.5 mile before turning north again to connect to Segment 

5. 

Segment 2c Yes

Segment 2c begins at the PBRR short line, close to the Port Bienville Industrial Park. 

Segment 2c extends in a northeasterly direction, and crosses Old Lower Bay Road west of a 

mine/quarry site. Its alignment meanders in an "S" shape as it extends to connect to 

Segment 3.

Segment 3 Yes Segment 3, extends northwesterly until it curves to the northeast before connecting to 

Segment 5

Segment 4 Yes Segment 4 parallels Segments 1b and 3 to the west. Segment 4 then turns to the northeast 

to connect to Segment 5. 

Segment 5 No Segment 5 is the shortest segment and begins at the northern terminus of Segments 2b, 3 

and 4, extending north connecting to Segments 6a and 6b.

Segment 6a Yes

Segment 6a begins at the northern terminus of Segment 5, extending north between Old 

Lower Bay Road and ending south of U.S. Hwy 90, for approximately 0.92-mile before 

connecting to Segment 7. The segment parallels a utility corridor on the east for most of its 

length. 

Segment 6b Yes

Segment 6b begins at the northern terminus of Segment 5, extending north between Old 

Lower Bay Road and ending south of U.S. Hwy 90, for approximately 0.92-mile before 

connecting to Segment 7. Similar to Segment 6a, Segment 6b parallels the same utility 

corridor but on the west side for most of its length. 

Segment 7 No

Segment 7 is approximately 4.8 miles long and is located between Segments 6a/6b and 

8a/8b. This segment begins 0.2 miles south of U.S. Hwy 90 and ends approximately 1.5 

miles north of I-10.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-9

Segments

Competing 

Segments 

(Y/N)

Description

NORTHERN SEGMENTS (Above IH 10)

Segment 8a Yes

Segment 8a begins at the northern terminus of Segment 7, east of the Texas Flat Mitigation 

Site, extending northwest for approximately 0.88-mile before tying into Segment 9. This 

segment extends through the central area of a former military bombing range. Segment 8a 

contains a slight curve to the east that does not occur in Segment 8b, which was introduced 

to avoid a small wetland before it joins with Segment 9. 

Segment 8b Yes

Segment 8b also begins at the northern terminus of Segment 7, east of Texas Flat 

Mitigation Site. It extends northwest for approximately 0.83 mile before tying into Segment 

9. Similar to Segment 8a, Segment 8b extends northwest through the former military 

bombing range. 

Segment 9 No

Segment 9 is approximately 6.0 miles long and is located between Segments 8a/8a and 

10a/10b. This segment begins approximately 2.2 miles north of I-10 and ends immediately 

north of SSC.

Segment 10a Yes

Segment 10a begins at the north termini of Segment 9 and extends north crossing Texas 

Flat Road at a new at-grade crossing approximately 2.5 miles east of the existing at-grade 

rail crossing. The segment continues to extend north and then west avoiding and/or 

minimizing impacts to isolated pockets of wetlands and open pit mines. Segment 10a 

eventually connects to Segment 11 approximately 3 miles south of the Town of Nicholson. 

Segment 10b Yes

Segment 10b begins at the north termini of Segment 9 and extends west avoiding and/or 

minimizing impacts to isolated pockets of wetlands. For approximately 2 miles, Segment 

10b parallels a utility corridor on the south before turning north. Shortly after turning 

north, the segment connects to the existing NS rail line between NASA’s John C. Stennis 

Space Center (SSC) and Nicholson, and continues along this rail line for approximately 2 

miles to the beginning of Segment 11. Although the existing NS rail line is in place, it has 

not been used in over a decade and would require maintenance and upgrade before it can 

be put back in service. Segment 10b would utilize the existing at-grade crossing of Texas 

Flat Road.

Segment 11 No

Segment 11 represents a portion of the existing NS rail line that extends from the Fee Area 

of SSC to the NS mainline in Nicholson. Segment 11 is approximately 3.5 miles long and 

begins at the northern termini of Segment 10a/10b and follows the existing NS rail line to 

Nicholson. The existing NS rail line has not been used in over a decade and would require 

maintenance and upgrade before it can be put back in service.

3.1.9 Agency/Public Scoping Meeting 

On August 19, 2015, a scoping meeting with resource and regulatory agencies was held at MDOT in 

Jackson, Mississippi. Representatives from MDOT, FRA, and HCPHC were also in attendance. A 

presentation of Project history along with the findings of the feasibility study was provided (see 

Appendix A). A Study Area map, proposed segments, and segment impact matrix were provided. The 

meeting discussed the scope and schedule for Phase 2 of the Study which includes NEPA and preliminary 

design. An overview of the agency coordination and public involvement plan was also provided (see 

Chapter 5 Agency Coordination). 

Additionally, on August 20, 2015, a public scoping meeting was held at the Port Bienville Training Facility

located in Pearlington, Mississippi. A handout was provided outlining the purpose of the Project, Project 

history, Project facts, feasibility study findings, and a map of the proposed rail alignment segments. 

Approximately sixteen people attended the meeting and two written comments were received both in favor 

of the Project.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-10

3.2 Phase 2 - Segment Screening

At the initiation of the Phase 2 alternatives analysis, there were 40 potential alternatives carried forward 

from Phase 1. To determine which alternatives would be further evaluated in the EIS, the alignments from 

these alternatives were further refined as described below and the Project team performed further screenings 

of the segments. 

The Phase 2 screenings began with field investigations and review of color infrared aerial photography in 

order to update and refine wetland boundaries from the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping, which 

was used during Phase 1. After review, the NWI mapping file was updated within a 1,000-foot wide corridor 

along each segment with refined wetland boundaries. Based on these initial field efforts, most of the

segments were found to contain more wetlands than what is shown on the NWI mapping.

A cultural resources predictive model study was performed to identify high, medium, and low probability 

areas for potential impacts to archaeological resources. The results of this study were mapped in a GIS file 

and added to the Project database. Additionally, new GIS data files of the Study Area were obtained and 

added to the database of information. A re-quantification of impacts for each segment was prepared utilizing 

this updated and more detailed information. 

Following the update of all GIS data for the Study Area, the segment corridor widths were refined to a 200-

foot buffer around the centerline of each rail segment. It is anticipated that the right-of-way for the new rail 

bed would be less than 100 feet; therefore, a 200-foot-wide corridor assessment was used to provide a 

conservative approach that would allow for a complete review of all potential impacts. Impacts for each 

segment were recalculated using refined GIS data. Engineering, operations, cost, and other associated 

factors were considered for each alternative.

3.2.1 Competing Segment Analysis

As stated previously, several corridors centrally located within the Study Area emerged as the least costly 

and least impacting. Every one of these corridors shared four common segments. These common segments 

included Segment 5, Segment 7, Segment 9, and Segment 11. The remaining segments were considered as 

competing segments and are further discussed below and seen in Figure 3.3.

Competing segments include seven segments south of U.S. Highway 90 (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4) and 

are located outside of the SSC acoustical buffer zone. These segments, when combined, represent 5 

potential routes connecting to the existing PBRR and standalone Segment 5. These five routes are 1a+1b+3, 

1a+4, 2a+3, 2b, and 2c+3.

The remaining competing segments are north of Segment 5 and consist of three pairs of competing 

segments. These competing pairs are 6a or 6b; 8a or 8b; and 10a or 10b. To compare competing segments, 

evaluation measures were established to provide criteria to evaluate each of the competing segments 

equally.

Evaluation Measures

Evaluation measures were identified and used to compare similar (competing) segments. These measures 

were divided into four sections as follows: Engineering Criteria, Natural Features, Man-made Features and

Infrastructure. In order to standardize the comparison, the segments were compared from common 

connection points. For some comparisons, segments were combined, but in all cases, they were compared 

equally from a common beginning and ending point.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-11

▪ Engineering Criteria - The engineering factors were calculated based upon the preliminary 

alignment geometry for each segment, and comparison to aerial photography and GIS data. The 

engineering factors considered for comparison include the following:

― Alignment Information - The alignment statistics include total length of the new alignment, 

length of existing NS spur line utilized, length of existing PBRR utilized east of beginning 

point of Segment 2a, the number of new at-grade crossings on paved roadways and the 

estimated total length of bridges/trestles over streams and wetlands.

― Implementation Cost - After the alignments were developed, preliminary cost estimates were 

prepared for the railroad design, right-of-way acquisition and construction. Unit costs were 

derived from average cost history for similar type of rail construction. Separate estimates were 

developed for the upgrade of the portion of the existing rail bed between SSC and Nicholson 

for the segments that incorporate this section of NS rail line. 

▪ Natural Features - The natural features were summarized for each segment based upon the 

preliminary rail alignments and a corridor width of 200 feet centered along the alignments. The 

Natural Features were determined from GIS data.

― The Natural Features include the acres of wetlands, the acres of wetland mitigation bank

impacted, the number of stream crossings, and the estimated mitigation cost for these crossings.

▪ Man-made Features – Most of the Study Area is undeveloped because of the building restrictions 

on the land within the SSC acoustical buffer zone. These restrictions prohibit the construction of 

any habitable buildings. However, other man-made features are allowed and were considered when 

comparing segments. Additionally, the very northern portion of the Study Area and the very 

southern portion of the Study Area lie outside of the SSC acoustical buffer zone. The man-made 

features include hazardous material sites, farmland (prime, prime if drained, and statewide 

importance), open pit mines and properties with mining permits, the former military bombing 

range, and potential archaeological sites.

▪ Infrastructure – The final category of features taken into consideration when comparing segments 

included existing infrastructure. The uniqueness of the SSC acoustical buffer zone greatly limits 

the type and number of infrastructure within the Study Area. This category includes major utilities 

such as power transmission lines and natural gas pipelines that may be crossed by segments and 

water supply wells that may encounter proximity impacts. 

Competing Segment Analysis for Southern Termini

Segments 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3 and 4, located south of U.S. 90/Chef Menteur Highway, are the seven

segments that represent the southernmost portion of the Study Area. The majority of these segments are 

located outside of the SSC acoustical buffer zone. These segments, when combined, represent five potential 

routes that would provide the first section of the new rail alignment to connect the PBRR, north through 

Hancock and Pearl River Counties to the NS railroad line in Nicholson, MS. The segments were combined 

in order to create five alignments that could be compared equally. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-12

The five potential route combinations, which were created by combining the Phase 1 segments, are shown 

in Figure 3.4:

▪ 1a + 1b + 3

▪ 1a + 4

▪ 2a + 3

▪ 2b

▪ 2c and+ 3

Western Tie-In

Three of these potential routes, each beginning with Segment 2, would connect with the PBRR

approximately 1.64 miles east of the entrance to the Port Bienville Industrial Park. 

Segments 2a + 3 begin at the PBRR tracks, but 1 mile closer to the Port Bienville Industrial Park. Segment 

2a extends north for approximately 1 mile, then turns northeast and crosses Old Lower Bay Road, then 

turns northwest to connect to Segment 3. Segment 3 extends northwesterly until it curves to the northeast 

to connect to Segment 5. The total length for this potential route is 2.59 miles. 

Segment 2b also begins at the PBRR tracks, closer to the Port Bienville Industrial Park. Segment 2b extends 

north for approximately 1.5 miles. After crossing Old Lower Bay Road, the segment turns northeast for 0.5 

mile before turning north again to connect to Segment 5. The total length of this potential route is 2.47 

miles. 

Segments 2c + 3 also begin at the PBRR tracks, close to the Port Bienville Industrial Park. Segment 2c 

extends in a northeasterly direction, and crosses Old Lower Bay Road west of a mine/quarry site. Its 

alignment meanders in an "S" shape as it extends to connect to Segment 3. Segment 3 extends northwesterly 

until it curves to the northeast before connecting to Segment 5. The total length of this potential route is 

2.59 miles. 

Eastern Tie-In

The other two potential routes, each beginning with Segment 1a, would connect with the PBRR

approximately 2.64 miles east of the Port Bienville Industrial Park. The eastern route combinations would 

utilize one additional mile of the existing PBRR rail line, making the total length longer than the routes that 

begin to the west. No cost or environmental impacts have been identified with this additional track length 

since it is the existing PBRR track, which is in good working condition, and would not require upgrade or 

modification. However, travel time and maintenance costs associated with this extra mile of travel were 

considered.

Segment 5 would be the common northern junction point for all five of these southernmost potential routes. 

During the Phase 1 evaluation, these routes were found to have similar potential environmental impacts and 

costs; therefore, as none of the possible routes stood out as a preferred option, it was recommended that 

they all be carried forward to Phase 2 for further investigation. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-13

Figure 3.4: Potential Southern Route Combinations
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-14

Segments 1a+ 1b+ 3 would become the southern terminus of the new location rail line. Segment 1a starts 

approximately 2.64 miles east of where Lower Bay Road crosses the existing PBRR tracks. Segment 1a 

extends north and crosses Old Lower Bay Road approximately 0.2 mile east of a mine/quarry site. 

Approximately 0.2 mile north of Old Lower Bay Road, Segment 1a meets Segment 1b, which extends in a 

northwesterly direction parallel to an unimproved roadbed. Segment 1b then connects to Segment 3, which 

extends northwester, curves to the northeast, and connects to Segment 5. The total length for the three 

segments is 2.55 miles. The additional 1 mile of track usage along the existing PBRR totals 3.55 miles for 

this potential route. 

Segments 1a + 4 begin at the PBRR tracks extending north with what would become the southern terminus 

of the new location rail line. Segment 1a starts approximately 2.64 miles east of where Lower Bay Road 

crosses the existing PBRR tracks. Segment 1a extends north and crosses Old Lower Bay Road 

approximately 0.2 mile east of a mine/quarry site. Once it crosses Old Lower Bay Road, Segment 1a 

connects to Segment 4, which parallels Segments 1b and 3 to the west. Segment 4 then turns to the northeast 

to connect to Segment 5. The total length for the two segments is 2.56 miles. The additional 1 mile of track 

usage along the existing PBRR totals 3.56 miles for this potential route.

These potential route combinations are described below and shown in Figure 3.4. For a side by side impacts 

comparison of the route combinations refer to Table 3.3.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Eastern Tie-In

The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of Segments 1a+1b+3 as compared to 

Segments 1a+4:

▪ Advantages of 1a+1b+3 are as follows:

― Less costly implementation ($0.12 million less)

― Has the least wetland impacts (2.54 acres less and $76,200 lower mitigation costs)

― Less potential impact to farmland (Prime if Drained) (0.46-acre less)

― Slightly shorter overall length (0.01-mile shorter)

▪ Disadvantages of 1a+1b+3 are as follows:

― Higher potential of cultural resources impacts (0.46-acre more “High Probability” impact and 

1.71 acres more “Medium Probability” impacts)
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-15

Table 3.3: Comparison Matrix for Southern Combined Segments

Description

Unit of 

Measure

Segment(s)

1a+1b+3 1a+4 2a+3 2b 2c +3

Eastern Tie-In Western Tie-In

ENGINEERING CRITERIA

Total Length Miles 2.55 2.56 2.59 2.47 2.59

Length Utilizing the Existing NS 

Rail Bed Miles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Length Utilizing the Existing PBRR

east of 2a, 2b & 2c Miles 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

New At-Grade Rail Crossings

(Paved Roads) # of Crossings 1 1 0 0 0

Total Estimated Implementation 

Cost (1) $ Millions $10.87 $10.99 $11.58 $11.39 $11.44

NATURAL FEATURES

Wetland Impacts (2) Acreage 29.03 31.57 41.60 42.57 35.48

Cost of Wetland Mitigation (3) $60K per acre 

@ 50%

$870,900 $947,100 $1,248,000 $1,277,100 $1,064,400

Texas Flat Mitigation Bank 

Impacts

Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cost of Mitigating Impacts to 

Mitigation Bank

$120K per 

acre @ 50%

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Streams 303(d)/TMDL's4 # of Crossings 0 0 0 0 0

Streams 303(d)/TMDL's4

Length 

(miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stream Crossings # of Crossings 0 0 1 1 1

Total Stream Impacts Linear Feet 0 0 265 250 290

Cost of Stream Mitigation (3)

$200 per 

linear feet @ 

50%

$0 $0 $26,500 $25,000 $29,000

MAN-MADE FEATURES

MDEQ CERCLA/Haz Mat sites Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Archaeological Sites

High Probability Acreage 28.21 27.75 17.66 13.87 15.59

Medium Probability Acreage 14.76 13.05 19.96 17.24 26.74

Farmland (Prime) Acreage 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.28

Farmland (Prime if Drained) Acreage 18.38 18.84 22.37 19.05 22.59

Farmland (Statewide Importance) Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mines Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.78 2.26

Bombing Ranges Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

INFRASTRUCTURE

Water Wells Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transmission Line Crossings # 0 0 0 0 0

Gas Line Crossings # 0 0 0 0 0

(1) Cost Estimates updated in October 2015

(2) Wetland Impacts are based on NWI mapping and ground truthing performed in the spring of 2015

(3) Cost assumes a 100-foot right-of-way (50 percent of the 200-foot corridor)

(4) 303 (d) Program established lists of impaired waters
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-16

Conclusion and Recommendations for Western Tie-In

The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of Segment 2b as compared to Segments 

2a+3 and Segments 2c+3:

▪ Advantages of 2b are as follows:

― Slightly shorter overall length (0.12-mile shorter).

― Less costly implementation ($0.19 million less than Segments 2a+3 and $0.05 million less than 

Segments 2c+3)

― Lower stream impacts (15 linear feet less stream crossings than Segments 2a+3 and 40 linear 

feet less stream crossings than Segments 2c+3)

― Less overall potential of cultural resources impacts (3.79 acre less “High Probability” impact 

than Segments 2a+3 and 1.72 acres less than Segments 2c+3; 2.72 acres less “Medium 

Probability” impacts than Segments 2a+3 and 9.5 acres less than Segments 2c+3)

― Less potential impact to farmland (0.28-acre less to Prime than 2c+3 and 3.32 acres less to 

Prime if Drained than Segments 2a+3 and 3.54 less than Segments 2c+3)

▪ Disadvantages of 2b are as follows:

― Higher impact to wetlands (0.97 acres more than Segments 2a+3 and $29,100 additional 

mitigation costs; 7.09 acres more than Segments 2c+3 and $212,700 additional mitigation 

costs)

― Higher potential to impact mines (3.52 acres more than Segments 2c+3 and 5.78 acres more 

than Segments 2a+3)

Based on the analysis above Segments 1a+4, Segments 2a+3, and Segments 2c+3 were eliminated from 

further study.

Competing Segment Analysis for Segments 6a and 6b 

Segments 6a and 6b are located in the southern portion of the Study Area, south of U.S. 90/Chef Menteur

Highway. They are essentially parallel segments, with Segment 6a being located more easterly. Both 

segments begin at the northern end of Segment 5 and extend due north to meet the southern node of Segment 

7. During the Phase 1 evaluation the segments were found to have similar potential impacts and costs; 

therefore, as neither segment stood out as a preferred option, it was recommended that they both be carried 

forward to Phase 2 for further investigation. 

Segment 6a begins at the northern terminus of Segment 5, extending north between Old Lower Bay Road 

and ending south of U.S. 90/Chef Menteur Highway, for approximately 0.92 mile before connecting to 

Segment 7. The segment parallels a utility corridor on the east for most of its length. Potential impacts 

include archaeological sites, farmland, and wetlands.

Segment 6b also begins at the northern terminus of Segment 5, extending north between Old Lower Bay 

Road and ending south of U.S. 90/Chef Menteur Highway, for approximately 0.92 mile before connecting 

to Segment 7. Similar to Segment 6a, Segment 6b parallels the same utility corridor but on the west side 

for most of its length. The segment impacts potential archaeological sites, farmland, and wetlands. See 

Figure 3.5. 

Table 3.4 contains a side by side comparison of Segments 6a and 6b.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-17

Figure 3.5: Segments 6a and 6b
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-18

Table 3.4: Comparison Matrix for Segments 6a and 6b

Description Unit of Measure

Segment

6a 6b

ENGINEERING CRITERIA

Total Length Miles 0.92 0.92

Length Utilizing the Existing NS Rail Bed Miles 0.00 0.00

Length Utilizing the Existing PBRR

east of 2a, 2b & 2c Miles 0.00 0.00

New At-Grade Rail Crossings (Paved Roads) # of Crossings 0 0

Total Estimated Implementation Cost (1) $ Millions $7.25 $14.47

NATURAL FEATURES

Wetland Impacts (2) Acreage 11.02 16.51

Cost of Wetland Mitigation (3) $60K per acre @ 50% $330,600 $495,300

Texas Flat Mitigation Bank Impacts Acreage 0.00 0.00

Cost of Mitigating Impacts to Mitigation Bank $120K per acre @ 50% $0 $0

Streams 303(d)/TMDL's4 # of Crossings 0 0

Streams 303(d)/TMDL's4Length (miles) 0.00 0.00

Stream Crossings # of Crossings 0 0

Total Stream Impacts Feet 0 0

Cost of Stream Mitigation (3) $200 per linear feet @ 50% $0 $0

MAN-MADE FEATURES

MDEQ CERCLA/Haz Mat sites Acreage 0.00 0.00

Potential Archaeological Sites

High Probability Acreage 0.03 0.61

Medium Probability Acreage 2.85 5.98

Farmland (Prime) Acreage 0.00 0.00

Farmland (Prime if Drained) Acreage 12.52 11.95

Farmland (Statewide Importance) Acreage 0.00 0.00

Mines Acreage 0.00 0.00

Bombing Ranges Acreage 0.00 0.00

INFRASTRUCTURE

Water Wells Acreage 0.00 0.00

Transmission Line Crossings # 0 0

Gas Line Crossings # 0 0

(1) Cost Estimates updated in October 2015

(2) Wetland Impacts are based on NWI mapping and ground truthing performed in the spring of 2015

(3) Cost assumes a 100-foot right-of-way (50 percent of the 200-foot corridor)

(4) 303 (d) Program established lists of impaired waters
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-19

Conclusion and Recommendations 

The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of Segment 6a as compared to 6b:

▪ The advantages of 6a are as follows:

― Less costly implementation ($7.2 M less than 6b, approximately half the total implementation 

cost)

― Less wetland impacts (6.0 acres less)

― Less probability of overall cultural resources impacts (0.58-acre less “High Probability” impact 

and 3.31 acres less “Medium Probability” impact)

― Less wetland mitigation cost ($164,700 less)

▪ Disadvantages of 6a are as follows:

― Higher potential for “Farmland (Prime if Drained) impacts (0.57 acre more than 6b)

Because Segment 6a was slightly better than Segment 6b in most impact categories, and minimized 

wetlands impacts, Segment 6b was eliminated from further study.

Competing Segment Analysis for Segments 8a and 8b

Segments 8a and 8b are located in the central portion of the Study Area, to the east of the Texas Flat 

Mitigation Site.

19 They are essentially parallel segments, with Segment 8a containing a curve and being 

located more easterly. Both segments begin at the northern end of Segment 7 and extend northwest to meet 

at the southern junction of Segment 9 (See Figure 3.6). During the Phase 1 evaluation these segments were 

found to have similar potential impacts and costs; therefore, as neither segment stood out as a preferred 

option, it was recommended that they both be carried forward to Phase 2 for further investigation. 

Segment 8a begins at the northern terminus of Segment 7, east of the Texas Flat Mitigation Site, extending 

northwest for approximately 0.88-mile before tying into Segment 9. The segment extends northwest 

impacting potential archaeological sites, farmland, and pockets of wetlands. This segment extends through 

the central area of a former military bombing range with the potential for unexploded ordnance. Segment 

8a contains a slight curve to the east that does not occur in Segment 8b, which was introduced to avoid a 

small wetland area before it joins with Segment 9. 

Segment 8b also begins at the northern terminus of Segment 7, east of the Texas Flat Mitigation Site. It 

extends northwest for approximately 0.83 mile before tying into Segment 9. Similar to Segment 8a, 

Segment 8b extends northwest through the former military bombing range with potential impacts to 

archaeological sites, farmland, and wetlands. 

Table 3.5 contains a side by side comparison of Segments 8a and 8b.

 

19 The 1,98 5-ac re Tex as Flat M itigation S ite is a c ommerc ial wetland mitigation bank that was appr oved b y USA CE Mobile Di strict 

in 2013. The b ank is located i n the center of th e Stud y Are a, to th e s outheas t of S SC; i t comprises ov er 6 mi les of s treams and over 

1,700 acres of wet pine fl ats and bottoml and har dwood fores ts with both stream a nd wetland c redits av ailable for purchas e.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-20

Figure 3.6: Segments 8a and 8b
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-21

Table 3.5: Comparison Matrix for Segments 8a and 8b

Description Unit of Measure

Segment

8a 8b

ENGINEERING CRITERIA

Total Length Miles 0.88 0.83

Length Utilizing the Existing NS Rail Bed Miles 0.00 0.00

Length Utilizing the Existing PBRR

east of 2a, 2b & 2c Miles 0.00 0.00

New At-Grade Rail Crossings (Paved Roads) # of Crossings 0 0

Total Estimated Implementation Cost (1) $ Millions $2.44 $2.42

NATURAL FEATURES

Wetland Impacts (2) Acreage 8.49 10.39

Cost of Wetland Mitigation (3) $60K per acre @ 50% $254,700 $311,700

Texas Flat Mitigation Bank Impacts Acreage 0.00 0.00

Cost of Mitigating Impacts to Mitigation Bank $120K per acre @ 50% $0 $0

Streams 303(d)/TMDL's4 # of Crossings 0 0

Streams 303(d)/TMDL's4Length (miles) 0.00 0.00

Stream Crossings # of Crossings 0 0

Total Stream Impacts Feet 0 0

Cost of Stream Mitigation (3) $200 per linear feet @ 50% $0 $0

MAN-MADE FEATURES

MDEQ CERCLA/Haz Mat sites Acreage 0.00 0.00

Potential Archaeological Sites

High Probability Acreage 2.69 2.72

Medium Probability Acreage 12.85 10.23

Farmland (Prime) Acreage 7.05 4.05

Farmland (Prime if Drained) Acreage 6.61 8.98

Farmland (Statewide Importance) Acreage 1.39 1.99

Mines Acreage 0.00 0.00

Bombing Ranges Acreage 21.33 20.24

INFRASTRUCTURE

Water Wells Acreage 0.00 0.00

Transmission Line Crossings # 0 0

Gas Line Crossings # 0 0

(1) Cost Estimates updated in October 2015

(2) Wetland Impacts are based on NWI mapping and ground truthing performed in the spring of 2015

(3) Cost assumes a 100-foot right-of-way (50 percent of the 200-foot corridor)

(4) 303 (d) Program established lists of impaired waters

Conclusion and Recommendations

The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of Segment 8a as compared to 8b:

▪ The advantages of 8a are as follows:

― Less impacts to wetlands, which lowers costs (2.0 acres of fewer impacts = $57,000 less in 

cost)

― Less potential for “High Probability” cultural resources impacts (0.03-acre less)
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-22

― Less potential for Farmland impacts, (2.37 acres less “Prime if Drained, and 0.60-acre less 

“Statewide Importance”)

▪ Disadvantages of 8a are as follows:

― Higher potential for “Medium Probability” cultural resources impacts (2.62 acres more)

― Higher Farmland “Prime” impacts, (3.0 acres more)

― Higher overall impacts to former military bombing ranges (1.09 acres more)

― Slightly longer in overall length (0.05-mile longer than 8b, due to curve)

― Higher overall cost ($20,000 more)

Because the impacts of these segments were similar, the Project team considered the 

avoidance/minimization of the wetland impacts as a primary factor in the decision-making process. Based 

on this, Segment 8b was eliminated from further study.

Competing Segment Analysis for Segments 10a and 10b 

Segments 10a and 10b are located in the northern portion of the Study Area approaching the town of 

Nicholson. These are competing segments and a comparison of each was performed during Phase 1. Both 

segments were found to have similar impacts and cost based on the level of analysis performed during 

Phase 1. Since a clear determination of which segment was best could not be determined at that time both 

segments were recommended to carry forward to Phase 2 for further investigation. Both of these segments 

have the same beginning and ending nodes, with both beginning at the northern end of Segment 9 and 

ending at the southern end or beginning of Segment 11. See Figure 3.7.

Segment 10a begins at the north termini of Segment 9 and extends north crossing Texas Flat Road at a new 

at-grade rail crossing approximately 2.5 miles east of the existing at-grade rail crossing. The segment 

continues to extend north and then west avoiding and/or minimizing impacts to isolated pockets of wetlands 

and open pit mines. Segment 10a connects to Segment 11 approximately 3 miles south of the Town of 

Nicholson. Segment 11 represents an existing NS rail line that extends from the Fee Area of SSC to the NS 

mainline in Nicholson. 

Segment 10b begins at the north termini of Segment 9 and extends west avoiding and/or minimizing 

impacts to isolated pockets of wetlands. For approximately 2 miles, Segment 10b parallels a utility corridor 

on the south before turning north. Shortly after turning north, the segment connects to the existing NS rail 

line between SSC and Nicholson, and continues along this rail line for a distance of approximately 2 miles 

to the beginning of Segment 11. Although the existing NS rail line is in place, it has not been used in over 

a decade and would require maintenance and upgrade before it can be put back in service. Segment 10b 

would utilize the existing at-grade crossing of Texas Flat Road.

Table 3.6 contains a side by side comparison of Segments 10a and 10b.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-23

Figure 3.7: Segments 10a and 10b
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-24

Table 3.6: Comparison Matrix for Segments 10a and 10b

Description Unit of Measure Segment

10a 10b

ENGINEERING CRITERIA

Total Length Miles 4.95 5.18

Length Utilizing the Existing NS Rail Bed Miles 0.00 1.95

Length Utilizing the Existing PBRR east of 2a, 2b & 2c Miles 0 0

New At-Grade Rail Crossings (Paved Roads) # of Crossings 1 0

Total Estimated Implementation Cost (1) $ Millions $25.91 $23.08

NATURAL FEATURES

Wetland Impacts (2) Acreage 55.53 25.71

Cost of Wetland Mitigation (3) $60K per acre @ 50% $1,665,900 $771,300

Texas Flat Mitigation Bank Impacts Acreage 0.00 0.00

Cost of Mitigating Impacts to Mitigation Banks $120K per acre @ 50% $0 $0

Streams 303(d)/TMDL's4 # of Crossings 1 1

Streams 303(d)/TMDL's4

Length (miles) 0.04 0.04

Other Stream Crossings # of Crossings 1 1

Total Stream Impacts Linear Feet 202 204

Cost of Stream Mitigation (3) $200 per linear feet @ 

50% $20,200 $20,400

MAN-MADE FEATURES

MDEQ CERCLA/Haz Mat sites Acreage 0.00 0.00

Potential Archaeological Sites

High Probability Acreage 20.72 29.77

Medium Probability Acreage 74.89 60.34

Farmland (Prime) Acreage 44.72 51.42

Farmland (Prime if Drained) Acreage 25.80 45.23

Farmland (Statewide Importance) Acreage 0.00 0.70

Mines Acreage 2.34 0.84

Bombing Ranges Acreage 23.18 24.09

INFRASTRUCTURE

Water Wells Acreage 0 0.23

Transmission Line Crossings # 0 0

Gas Line Crossings # 2 0

(1) Cost Estimates updated in October 2015

(2) Wetland Impacts are based on NWI Mapping & Ground Truthing performed in the Spring 2015

(3) Cost assumes a 100-foot right-of-way (50 percent of the 200-foot corridor)

(4) 303 (d) Program established lists of impaired waters

Conclusion and Recommendations

The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of Segment 10a as compared to 10b:

▪ The advantages of 10b are as follows:

― Has the least wetland impacts (30 acres less wetland impacts) 

― Less costly implementation ($2.83 million less)

― Utilizes 1.95 miles of the existing NS rail bed (10a is entirely on new location)

― Utilizes the existing at-grade rail crossing on Texas Flat Road

― Easier potential future rail connection for SSC 

― Less potential for mine impacts (1.5 acres less)

― Less probability of “Medium Probability” cultural resources impacts, (14.55 acres less)

― Less gas line crossings (2 less)
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-25

▪ Disadvantages of 10b are as follows:

― Slightly longer in overall length (0.23-mile longer)

― Higher probability of “High Probability” cultural resources impacts (9.05 acres more)

― Higher “Farmland” impacts, (Prime - 6.7 acres more, Prime if Drained - 19.43 acres more, 

Statewide Importance - 0.70 acres more) 

― Slighter higher acreage in a former military bombing range (0.91 acres more)

Based on the above analysis, Segment 10a was eliminated from further study.

3.2.2 Competing Segment Analysis Results

Upon completion of the above segment comparisons and the elimination of segments from further study, 

11 segments remained (1a, 1b, 3, 2b, 5, 6a, 7, 8a, 9, 10b, and 11), which were combined to create two 

continuous alternatives. Alternative A consists of segments 2b, 5, 6a, 7, 8a, 9, 10b, and 11. Alternative B 

incorporated segments1a, 1b, 3, 5, 6a, 7, 8a, 9, 10b, and 11. See Figure 3.8.

3.2.3 Additional Considerations for the Southern Connections

At the completion of the competing segment analysis, the Project team including FRA and MDOT 

determined that detailed analysis would begin on the two alternatives and would include environmental, 

social, cultural, and physical investigations. Since detailed field surveys would only be conducted for the 

preferred alternative, it was determined that field work could begin on sections that were shared by both 

alternatives.

During the months of March and April 2016, field work was completed for cultural and natural resources,

including wetland delineations, for most of the proposed alignment north of I-10. In addition to delineations 

north of I-10, preliminary field investigations (not delineation) were conducted south of I-10, which 

revealed that the Study Area south of I-10 is predominantly inundated with water, most of which would be 

considered wetlands. Based on these observations, the wetland mapping along the southern segments was 

modified for the second time, indicating more wetlands. Small pockets of upland areas were identified on 

aerial mapping within this area where residential development also occurred. 

During Phase 2 of the Project development, planners, scientist, and engineers continued the alternative 

refinement to avoid and/or minimize impacts as new data became available. In this case, as more accurate 

wetland data became available, opportunities arose for the Project team to revisit the southern segments 

and refine the two routes south of I-10 to help minimize impacts to residential areas.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-26

Figure 3.8: Alternatives A and B
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-27

As stated above, several key factors were identified during the preliminary field investigations south of I10. The key factors in this refinement process included: 

▪ The Study Area below I-10 was observed to 

contain more wetland areas than originally 

anticipated;

▪ Upland areas tend to have residential 

development associated with them;

▪ Residential areas appear to be lower-income;

▪ Colonial Pipeline has an existing utility 

corridor approximately 100 feet wide that 

begins near Segment 6A and travels due south 

to the PBRR and beyond. This utility corridor

is an existing disturbed corridor through a

generally remote and wooded area. The utility 

corridor is cleared and maintained. 

Following field work, including the delineation of wetlands within segment 6a, 7, 8a, 9, and 10b, the NWI 

mapping was updated for a second time along the southern segments based on these more recent field 

observations. Using this updated information, the Project team reassessed the two alternative options for 

the southern section. These options were identified as Segments 2b+5+6a (Alternative A) and Segments 

1a+1b+3+5+6a (Alternative B). See Table 3.7. One of the deciding factors in the original segment selection 

was wetland impacts. Because it was determined that the majority of the area south of I-10 contains

numerous wetlands, and impacts would be equitable between all segments in the area, other resources, such 

as proximity to residences, became more significant in the analysis and comparison of impacts. Segments 

3, 5, and 6a were developed to avoid high quality wetlands, which introduced curves within the alignment. 

Based on the second round of field observations, these curves were determined to be unnecessary.

Additionally, the Project team determined that by paralleling the existing disturbed utility corridor (Colonial 

Pipeline) and utilizing former rail beds in the area, that potential impacts to existing residences along Old 

Lower Bay Road could be avoided and/or minimized. 

Table 3.7: Segments within Southern Alternatives

Description

Segments in Alternatives A and B

1a 1b 2b 3 5 6a 7 8a 9 10b 11

Alternative A X X X X X X X X

Alternative B X X X X X X X X X X

With the intent of minimizing impacts on existing residences in the area, the Project team assessed 

additional criteria to develop, refine and re-evaluate these southern segments. 

The additional criteria included:

▪ Number of residential homes located within 1,000 feet from the railroad centerline;

▪ Number of residential homes located within 200-400 feet from the railroad centerline;
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-28

▪ Length of the segments paralleling the existing (already disturbed) utility corridor;

▪ Length of the segments utilizing former rail beds; and

▪ Total length of new track from the PBRR’s switch point to the location the alignment ties into the 

PBRR.

Refinement of Alternatives A and B

Alternative A was re-evaluated and determined that the curves in segments 3, 5, and 6a were also not 

necessary as stated above. Alternative A was initially identified as having fewer wetlands. However, 

subsequent field efforts revealed this initial evaluation to be inaccurate and Alternative A has a higher 

potential for wetland impacts than Alternative B. Alternative A would parallel the Colonial Pipeline 

corridor for a portion of its length but would not utilize any of the former rail beds. Also, the tie-in location 

to the PBRR was determined to be within 370 feet of the existing switch point which is undesirable from a 

train operational perspective.

The Project team decided that, instead of modifying Alternative A, an additional option could be created to 

assist in minimizing and reducing impacts. This revised alternative is identified as “Alternative C” and 

would deviate after leaving the southern terminus of Segment 7. Alternative C would then travel south 

paralleling the Colonial pipeline right-of-way on the eastern side of the corridor. The option would continue 

south until it approaches the sand mine located adjacent to Old Lower Bay Road. The alignment would 

cross over the petroleum pipeline corridor in a southwestern direction and continues south paralleling the 

petroleum pipeline corridor on the western side to connect with the PBRR. This option was determined to 

be the most direct route of the southern alignments, and would provide a desirable tie-in distance of 0.4 

miles to the PBRR’s switch point which would better support railroad operations at the industrial park

(Figure 3.9).

Alternative B was also re-evaluated and determined that the curves in Segments 3, 5, and 6a were not 

necessary to avoid and minimize impacts primarily to wetlands. Also, as Alternative B crosses over Old

Lower Bay Road, the alignment is situated within 200 to 400 feet of four single-family homes. Alternative 

B also utilizes an existing former rail bed for a portion of the segment. However, the former rail bed 

continues in a southeasterly direction then turns south to the PBRR. Alternative B is also located near the

existing Colonial Pipeline corridor, and briefly parallels this already disturbed corridor.

The Project team decided that, instead of modifying Alternative B, a continuous segment could be created 

using various parts of the original segments to assist in minimizing and reducing impacts. This revised 

alternative is identified as “Alternative D” and deviates from the main alignment at the southern terminus 

of Segment 7. Alternative D travels south paralleling the Colonial Pipeline right-of-way on the eastern side 

of the corridor. This option would utilize the former rail bed in a southeasterly direction then turning south 

at a point farther away from the residential development, potentially reducing impacts. This option would 

also provide the greatest distance to the PBRR’s switch point (Figure 3.10).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-29

Figure 3.9: Alternative A and Alternative C
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-30

Figure 3.10: Alternative B and Alternative D
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-31

Evaluation of the Southern Alternatives

To be consistent with previous evaluations and segment comparisons, the two new alternatives were 

developed to the same levels as both alternative “A” and “B.” Impact analysis was conducted on all four 

alternatives (A, B, C, and D) beginning at the southern terminus of Segment 7 and ending at their individual 

termini along the PBRR (See Figure 3.11). The Project team used both the criteria from the original 

comparisons and several new criteria to develop a revised impact matrix to compare the four alternatives 

as indicated below in Table 3.8. New criteria included distance of the rail line to residences, length of track 

to the switch, and length of the corridor along an existing disturbed utility corridor. 

Alternative A – Compared to the other three options, this alignment would be located farthest from

residential areas. However, this option would have the highest wetland impacts, highest estimated costs, 

and highest stream impacts. Also, from an operational standpoint this alignment would tie into the PBRR a 

very short distance from the switch point (370 feet), which makes it less desirable from an operational 

perspective. This alignment would parallel the Colonial Pipeline corridor for a short distance but would not 

utilize any of the former rail beds. The Project team recommended to eliminate this alternative due to cost, 

highest stream crossings, and highest wetland impacts. MDOT, HCPHC, and FRA agreed to eliminate this 

alignment alternative from further study.

Alternative B – Compared to the other three options this alignment is the least costly. Also from an 

operational standpoint, it would tie into the PBRR switch at an optimal distance to the switch point. It also 

would have lower wetland impacts than two of the other options. This alignment parallels the Colonial Pipe

line corridor for 0.61 miles and would also followed the former rail bed for 0.66 miles. However, this 

alignment would have the highest impacts to the residences in the area. The Project team recommended 

that this alternative be eliminated due to potential residential impacts, (four residents within several hundred 

feet of the centerline). MDOT, HCPHC, and FRA agreed to eliminate this alternative from further study.

Alternative C (Preferred) – Compared to the other three options, this alignment would be the most direct 

route, with the shortest distance between Segment 7 and the PBRR. This alignment would be located west 

of the residential development and the existing paved roadway of Old Lower Bay Road and would not 

impact any residential areas. This option fell in the median range for wetland impacts and cost and would 

have lower stream impacts. From a rail operational standpoint, this alignment would tie into the PBRR at 

an optimal distance from the switch point of 0.4 mile. This alignment would also parallel the Colonial 

Pipeline corridor for the entire length of the segment. Existing school bus routes for South Hancock 

Elementary School do not appear to extend out to the new at-grade crossing for the proposed Project, 

meaning school bus delays and safety issues associated with rail operations would be minimal. Noise and 

vibration impacts on existing residences in the area would be avoided.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-32

Figure 3.11: Alternatives A, B, C and D
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-33

Table 3.8: Southern Options Comparison Matrix 

Description Unit of 

Measure

Alternative(s)

Alt A (Option)

(2b+5+6a)

Alt B (Option)

(1a+1b+3+5+6a)

Alt C

(Option)

Alt D

(Option)

ENGINEERING CRITERIA

Total Length Miles 3.50 3.56 3.45 3.66

Length to PBRR switch Miles 0.07 0.97 0.40 1.20

Length Utilizing Former Rail bed Miles 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.95

Length Paralleling Existing Utility 

Corridor Miles 0.61 0.61 3.04 1.23

New At-Grade Rail Crossings 

(Paved Roads) # of Crossings 0 1 0 1

Total Estimated Implementation 

Cost (1) $ Millions $22.04 $21.61 $21.79 $21.64

NATURAL FEATURES

Wetland Impacts (2) Acreage 80.80 66.85 79.27 63.46

Cost of Impacts to Wetlands (3) $ Millions $2.42 $2.01 $2.38 $1.90

Stream Crossings # of Crossings 1 0 1 0

Total Stream Impacts Feet 250 0 40 0

Cost of Impacts to Streams (3)

$200 per 

linear feet @ 

50%

$25,000 $0 $4,000 $0

MAN-MADE FEATURES

MDEQ CERCLA/Haz Mat sites Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

High Probability Acreage 13.85 28.11 14.09 20.07

Medium Probability Acreage 20.45 17.89 28.08 28.77

Residential Homes within 200 -

400ft of centerline # of homes 0.00 4.00 0.00 1.00

Residential Homes within 1,000ft 

of centerline (4) # of homes 0.00 6.00 0.00 2.00

16th Sections Land Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00

Farmland (Prime) Acreage 0.00 1.32 2.46 1.98

Farmland (Prime if Drained) Acreage 31.47 30.90 32.51 31.08

Mines Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(1) Cost Estimates updated in May 2016

(2) Wetland Impacts are based on NWI Mapping and field observation performed in the Spring 2016

(3) Cost assumes a 100-foot right-of-way (50 percent of the 200-foot corridor)

(4) The number of homes includes homes within 200 – 400ft of center line.

Alternative D – Compared to the other three options, this alignment would have the lowest estimated cost. 

From an operational standpoint, it would tie into the PBRR’s switch at the greatest distance providing 

operational benefits. It also would have lower wetland impacts than the other three options. This alignment 

parallels the Colonial Pipeline corridor and would also follow the former rail bed for over half its length. 

However, this option would have the potential to impact one to two residences with noise and vibration 

impacts and a new at-grade crossing would be introduced through the existing paved section of Old Lower 

Bay Road. This at-grade crossing would potentially impact the existing South Hancock Elementary School 

bus route increasing concerns for bus operations and safety. The alignment would also impact 16th Section 

Land. The 16th Section Land was established from the Land Ordinance of 1785 to help fund public schools.

The Project team recommended that this alternative be eliminated due to potential residential impacts and 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-34

additional safety concerns associated with a new at-grade rail crossing and because of the additional travel 

time and distance associated with the longer alternative. MDOT, HCPHC, and FRA agreed to eliminate 

this alternative from further study. 

Conclusions and Recommendations for Southern Option Comparisons

The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of Alternative C as compared to A, B, 

and D.

▪ The advantages of Alternative C are as follows:

― Utilizes shortest Route

― Follows an existing utility corridor (3.04 miles) 

― Lower cost for implementation then Alternative A ($0.25 m less)

― Optimal distance to the PBRR switch. 

― No impacts to residences (both alternative B and D impact residences)

▪ The disadvantages of Alternative C are as follows:

― Higher wetland impacts (Alternative A has the highest)

― Higher probability of “High Probability” cultural resources impacts (Alternative B has the 

highest)

― Higher “Farmland” impacts, (Prime – 2.46 acres more, Prime if Drained – 32.51 acres more) 

Based on the above analysis, Alternatives A, B, and D are eliminated from further study.

3.3 Build (Preferred) Alternative

Based on these alternative comparisons and the elimination of competing segments from further study, 

there are six segments that were combined to create the Build Alternative that was further studied in this

Draft EIS. This alternative will be compared to a No-Build Alternative. 

The Build Alternative would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, Mississippi and 

would continue southwest along the existing NS rail line (Segment 11). It would leave the existing rail 

south of Texas Flat Road and continue in easterly direction (along Segment 10b). It would turn to the 

southeast (along Segment 9) and would turn and travel south (along Segment 8a and Segment 7). The 

alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing Port 

Bienville Rail Road. Figure 3.12 shows the proposed alignment of the Build Alternative. 

Based on these studies, FRA has identified the Build Alternative as the Preferred Alternative for the Project; 

the Preferred Alternative will be reviewed during distribution of the Draft EIS and during the public 

comment period. Any changes made to the Preferred Alternative based on comments received during the 

comment period will be addressed in the FEIS/Record of Decision (ROD).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3-35

Figure 3.12: Build Alternative
This page left intentionally blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-1

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter provides a general description of the natural environment and the existing social and economic 

characteristics of the Study Area. The descriptions establish a baseline condition of the social and 

environmental settings of the Study Area and provide a basis for determining the environmental 

consequences of the Build alternative, which is discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.

4.1 Study Area

The Study Area encompasses a portion of Hancock and Pearl River Counties. The Study Area is bounded 

by the communities of Nicholson to the north, Port Bienville to the south, the Pearl River to the west and 

Stennis International Airport and SR 603/43 to the east, representing a Study Area of approximately 231 

square miles (see Figure 4.1).

The Study Area is bisected by Interstate 10 (I-10), while Interstate 59 (I-59) passes through a small portion 

of the Study Area to the north. Other significant features within the Study Area include wetlands, wetland 

mitigation banks, forests, mines, the John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC), and a 125,000‐acre acoustical 

buffer zone surrounding the SSC. This acoustical buffer zone makes up the majority of the Study Area. The 

two major facilities and key economic factors within the Study Area are Port Bienville Industrial Park and 

NASA’s SSC, both of which are important to the local and state economy.

For the assessment of some resources, including cultural resources, wetlands, habitat, and threatened and 

endangered species, a smaller corridor was used to evaluate existing conditions instead of the entire Study 

Area. This was due to the intensive field work required to survey for these resources, which would be cost 

prohibitive for the entire 231-square mile Study Area. Throughout this chapter several terms are used to 

describe these different areas of effect and/or corridors assessed for the proposed Project. These terms are 

described below:

▪ Study Area – 231 square mile area of Hancock and Pearl River Counties, bounded by the 

community of Nicholson to the north, Port Bienville Industrial Park to the south, the Pearl River to 

the west, and Stennis International Airport and the community of Kiln to the east.

▪ Project Corridor – 200-foot corridor within which the proposed rail line will be constructed. 

▪ Archaeological Area of Potential Effect (APE) - 200-foot wide buffer along the identified rail 

alignment that was surveyed for archaeological resources. 

▪ Architectural APE – Approximately 700-foot wide buffer along the alignment that was surveyed 

for architectural resources. 

▪ Survey Corridor - 200-foot wide buffer along the identified rail alignment that was surveyed in 

the field for wetlands, habitat, and threatened and endangered species. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-2

Figure 4.1: Study Area
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-3

4.1.1 Key Features of the Study Area

Port Bienville Industrial Park ‐ Port Bienville is a shallow draft barge port in southwest Mississippi, 

located on the Intracoastal Waterway near mile marker 24 on Mullatto Bayou in Hancock County. The Port 

Bienville property encompasses approximately 3,600 acres, including an industrial park and the port 

facility. 

John C. Stennis Space Center ‐ For more than four decades, SSC in Hancock County has served as 

NASA’s primary rocket propulsion testing ground. Today, the center provides propulsion test services for 

NASA and the Department of Defense and the private sector. Stennis is home to NASA’s Rocket Propulsion 

Test Program, which manages all of the agency’s propulsion test facilities. State‐of‐the‐art facilities, a 7.5 

‐mile canal waterway system, and the 125,000‐acre acoustical buffer zone that surrounds SSC enable

delivery and testing of large‐scale rocket engines and components. Development within the acoustical 

buffer zone is governed by development restrictions purchased by the federal government. The government 

purchased some of the lands within the acoustical buffer zone, but the majority of this property remains in 

private ownership subject to the development restrictions that prohibits any inhabitable buildings within 

the acoustical buffer zone.

Wetland Mitigation Banks - A large portion of the Study Area is made up of wetland mitigation banks. 

The establishment of the acoustical buffer zone for SSC restricted land uses and all development within the 

boundary. The area is inundated with wetlands and when combined with limited development opportunities, 

it has made the Study Area conducive for the development of wetland mitigation banks.

A wetland mitigation bank is an aquatic resource (wetlands and/or streams), including some surrounding 

property, that has been set aside for the protection of the resource. A boundary of the property is established 

with a legal instrument and includes deed restrictions placed upon the property. A formal agreement is 

established with regulatory agencies on the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of the resource for 

perpetuity. The agreement also establishes a number of credits available once the restoration is complete. 

These credits can then be purchased by developers and infrastructure projects as mitigation for their impacts 

on similar types of resources.

The Study Area contains six mitigation sites owned by NASA, eight privately owned banks and two 

proposed banks for a total of 16 sites. These mitigation banks encompass approximately 13,471 acres and 

contain both wetlands and streams. Wetland mitigation banks comprise approximately 9 percent of the 

Study Area and were avoided to the extent possible during Project development. Wetland mitigation banks 

are discussed further in Section 4.12.

4.2 Land Use

Land use planning for the Study Area is guided by two main governing bodies that include Pearl River 

County (5 percent of the Study Area) and Hancock County (95 percent of the Study Area). The Study Area 

begins within the southernmost part of Pearl River County, and continues into Hancock County. Planning 

documents that regulate both existing and future land uses within these counties include:

▪ Pearl River County 2010 Smart Growth Plan

▪ Pearl River County Subdivision Regulations

▪ Pearl River County Strategic Plan 2002

▪ SSC Acoustical Buffer Zone
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-4

▪ Hancock County Interim Comprehensive Plan (2008)

▪ Hancock County Zoning Ordinance

▪ Hancock County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance

▪ Hancock County Subdivision Regulations

The Pearl River County 2010 Smart Growth Plan identifies development regulations that maintain the rural 

nature of agricultural and timber lands while allowing the traditional homesteading. The plan recommends 

flexibility in development requirements to maintain a balance between the rural and small-town 

characteristics of the county. 

The SSC in Hancock County is surrounded by a 125,000‐acre acoustical buffer zone that is governed by 

development restrictions purchased by the federal government. Some of the lands within the acoustical 

buffer zone were directly purchased by the government; however, although much of this property remains 

in private ownership, development restrictions prohibit any inhabitable buildings to be located within the 

acoustical buffer zone area (see Figure 4.2).

Hancock County is predominantly rural in nature, and various land uses include agriculture and natural 

resource preservation. The county consists of residential (26 percent) and undeveloped land (65 percent). 

Most of the undeveloped land is used for silviculture operations, sand mines, and wetland mitigation banks.

4.2.1 Pearl River County

As stated above, only a small portion of the Study Area falls within Pearl River County. Just over half of 

this area is outside the SSC acoustical buffer zone. In 2010, most of Pearl River County was rural in nature, 

with 87 percent of land falling into forested or agricultural uses. Land within the SSC acoustical buffer 

zone, along the existing rail line consists of forested and agricultural areas. Outside of the SCC acoustical

buffer zone, land use begins to change to rural residential, agricultural and low density residential adjacent 

to the boundary line. Further north, there is high density residential development, with 

commercial/industrial/institutional uses at its center. 

The census-designated place of Nicholson lies in the northwestern corner of the Study Area. There is a mix 

of residential single-family and industrial/commercial land uses. Residential areas are both high density 

and low density neighborhoods. The inactive Norfolk Southern rail line ties into an active NS line at the 

intersection of U.S. 11 and SR 607 in Nicholson. The active line parallels U.S. 11, where the land use 

includes infrastructure and high-density residential. U.S. 11 connects Nicholson to Picayune, three miles 

to the north. 

A growth corridor has been designated by Pearl River County 2010 Smart Growth Plan along both I-59 and 

U.S. 11 within the northern section of the Study Area. Growth is expected to occur primarily within the 

cities of Poplarville and Picayune, which are both outside of the Study Area. In the future, land use within 

Pearl River County within the Study Area is still projected to be forest, agricultural, rural residential and 

commercial/industrial/institutional. A portion of the forested area is expected to convert to residential and 

commercial/industrial/institutional uses. Commercial uses, specifically, and low-density residential areas 

are expected to expand along U.S. 11 and its intersection with I-59. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-5

Figure 4.2: Acoustical Buffer Zone and Land Use
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-6

The Study Area is located in unincorporated Pearl River County, for which no zoning or growth plans were 

included. The future growth maps in the Land Use section of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan only offer 

predictions, based on the assumption that growth of a specific type (i.e., low density residential) would

occur adjacent to areas devoted to that land use type in 2010. 

4.2.2 Hancock County

The Existing Land Use Map included in the 2008 Hancock County Mississippi Comprehensive Plan 

identified residential, hotels/motels, industrial/manufacturing, transportation/communication, retail, 

services, public use, churches, cultural and parks, resource extraction, and undeveloped land within the 

Study Area (See Table 4.1). Port Bienville Industrial Park is a 3,600-acre industrial site at the southern end

of the Study Area. 

Table 4.1: Hancock and Pearl River Counties Land Use Categories

Land Use Categories Hancock County Pearl River County

Residential 26.0% 8.5%

Hotel/Motel 0.0% N/A

Industrial/Manufacturing 0.8% 1%

Transportation/Communication 0.8% 0.7%

Retail 0.4% >1%

Services 0.3% N/A

Public Use 0.3% N/A

Churches 0.4% N/A

Cultural and Parks 1.9% 0.12%

Resource Extraction 2.0% N/A

Undeveloped Land 67.6% 87.0%

The Hancock County Interim Comprehensive Plan November 2, 2008

Pearl River County 2010 Smart Growth Plan, May 27, 2010 (some data not available (N/A)

Within the Town of Pearlington, there is a mix of residential single-family and vacant land use, with 

institutional/school uses in the northern section. North of the SR 607/ U.S. 90 intersection, the land use is 

largely park/open space/protected land use, except for a small section of right-of-way west of the proposed 

alignment on I-10 and the fee area of SSC, which is primarily office, with small areas of institutional/school 

designations. 

Changes in future land uses, as shown in the Hancock County Mississippi Comprehensive Plan, are 

minimal. The future land use map shows low density residential and undeveloped land as the major land 

use within the Study Area, which is consistent with current conditions. In and around Pearlington, there is

primarily medium density residential with commercial and mixed uses. Between Pearlington and the Port 

Bienville Industrial Park is another area of low-density residential housing.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-7

4.3 Farmland

Farmland is defined as land used for crop production including livestock and timber. The Farmland 

Protection Policy Act (FPPA) enacted in 1981 (7 U.S.C. §4201) is intended to reduce and minimize the 

impacts of federal projects on area farmlands and to protect farmlands from conversion to non-agricultural 

uses. Prior to farmlands being used for a federal project, an assessment must be completed to determine if 

prime, unique, statewide or locally important farmlands would be converted to non-agricultural uses. If the 

assessment determines the use of farmland for the project is in excess of the parameters defined by the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), as well as the lead federal agency must take measures to minimize the impacts of the project to 

these farmlands. 

The NRCS is the lead agency that determines the suitability of farmlands. NRCS characterizes eligible 

farmland as being “prime”, “unique”, or of “statewide or local importance.” The designations are based on 

NRCS soil types and are protected by federal and state legislation. 

Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing 

food, feed, fiber, forage, or oil-seed and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, 

pesticides, and labor without intolerable soil erosion (7 U.S.C. §4201(c)(1)(A)). Prime farmland includes 

land that possesses the above characteristics and may include land currently used as cropland, pastureland, 

rangeland, or forestland. Prime farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban 

development or water storage. 

Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific high-value food 

and fiber crops (7 U.S.C. §4201(c)(1)(B)). It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing 

season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce high quality or high yields of specific crops 

when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Examples of such crops include 

lentils, nuts, annually cropped white wheat, cranberries, citrus and other fruits, olives, and vegetables.

Statewide or locally important farmland is land that has been designated of state or local importance for the 

production of food, feed, fiber, forage, or oil-seed crops as determined by state or local government 

agencies, but is not of national significance (7 U.S.C. §4201(c)(1)(C)).

Although some prime, unique and statewide important soils are located in the Study Area, the majority of 

this area is being used for silviculture, which is the growth and cultivation of trees. There are minimal 

farming investments such as barns, irrigation, etc. that are used for growing crops. 

As can be seen in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3, prime soils make up approximately 44 percent of the 147,789 

acres of the Study Area.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-8

Table 4.2: Pearl River County Farmlands within the Study Area (Prime/Statewide Importance)

Soil Type Farmland Type Acres in 

Study Area

Percent of 

Study Area

Basin loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 37 3%

Bassfield sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Prime 114 <1%

Benndale sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 58 <1%

Escambia fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 2198 1%

Escambia loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 2 <1%

Latonia fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 20 <1%

Malbis fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes Prime 1 <1%

Poarch loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 1461 1%

Poarch loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime 335 <1%

Poarch loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes Prime 137 <1%

Saucier loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 8 <1%

Saucier fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime 24 <1%

Smithton sandy loam Prime 1059 1%

Smithton association occasionally flooded Prime 42 <1%

Smithton fine sandy loam Prime 3 <1%

Total Acres of Prime Farmland 5,499 4%

Table 4.3: Hancock County Farmlands Within the Study Area (Prime/Statewide Importance)

Soil Type Farmland Type Acres in 

Study Area

Percent of 

Study Area

Lucedale fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 29 <1%

Escambia loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 8853 6%

Escambia loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime 3308 2%

Guyton silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 10615 7%

Harleston fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 7667 5%

Harleston fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime 3188 2%

Malbis fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 50 <1%

Malbis fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime 164 <1%

Malbis fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes Prime 84 <1%

The McLaurin fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime 365 <1%

Poarch fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 2284 2%

Poarch fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime 8241 6%

Ruston fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 191 <1%

Ruston fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes Prime 48 <1%

Saucier loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime 1294 1%

Saucier fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime 2406 2%

Smithton fine sandy loam Prime 4612 3%

Total Acres of Prime Farmland 53,401 36%

Poarch fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slope Statewide 23 <1%

Eustis loamy fine sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes Statewide 645 <1%

McLaurin fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes Statewide 74 <1%

Poarch fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes Statewide 1295 1%

Saucier fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes Statewide 677 <1%

Saucier fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes Statewide 103 <1%

Total Acres of Statewide Important Farmland 2,817 2%
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-9

4.3.1 Conservation Easements

Also under the NRCS, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) provides financial and

technical assistance to help conserve agricultural lands and wetlands and their related benefits. Under the 

Agricultural Land Easements component, NRCS helps Indian tribes, state and local governments and nongovernmental organizations protect working agricultural lands and limit non-agricultural uses of the land.

Under the Wetlands Reserve Easements component, NRCS helps to restore, protect and enhance enrolled 

wetlands easement programs to landowners who want to maintain or enhance their land in a way beneficial 

to agriculture and/or the environment.

There are no conservation easements that were identified with Study Area. 

4.4 Socioeconomics

Based on the American Community Survey (ACS) 2011-2015 estimates, Mississippi has a population of 

approximately 2,988,081. Overall, Pearl River County has a population of approximately 55,196 and 

Hancock County has a population of approximately 45,627. The median age of the population is 41 years 

for both counties, with approximately 29 to 30 percent of the population having graduated from high school. 

Unemployment rates for the both counties average an estimated 11 to 12 percent. The median household 

income for Hancock County is $43,355 and the Pearl River County median household income is $40,976. 

Hancock County has an estimated 20 percent of their populations living below the poverty line, while Pearl 

River County is estimated at 21%. Overall, the characteristics of the populations within Hancock and Pearl 

River are comparable to Mississippi (See Table 4.4.).

4.4.1 Population

Although the SSC acoustical buffer zone has no residential population, and makes up much of Hancock 

County, the overall population of Hancock County is not much lower than Pearl River County. This is due 

to the relatively large population of Bay St. Louis (10,838 people). Over a five-year period from 2010 to 

2014, Hancock County saw the highest percentage of population growth at 4.4 percent, compared to the 

state at 0.9 percent and Pearl River, which saw a decline at 0.9 percent.

4.4.2 Age/Employment/Education

Approximately 59 percent of the population of Mississippi, Hancock County, and Pearl River County is 

within the 20-64 age range, which is the primary workforce. Pearl River County does fall 3 percent lower 

at 56 percent and also has a lower population of 53 percent in the labor forces when compared to Mississippi 

(58%) and Hancock County (56%). The percentage of those employed is again comparable to the state at 

52 percent, with Hancock County at approximately 50 percent and Pearl River County lower at 46 percent. 

According to the July 2016 U.S. Department of Commerce Employment Report the national unemployment 

rate stayed at 4.9 percent. All three of the discussion areas are more than double this percentage, with 

Mississippi and Hancock County at 10 percent and Pearl River County at 12 percent.

The state of Mississippi’s population that graduated from high school is approximately 30 percent and 19 

percent graduated from college. Hancock County is slightly lower with 29 percent high school graduates 

and 19 percent with college degrees. Pearl River County is 30 percent high school graduates with only 3 

percent having college degrees. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-10

Table 4.4: Population Characteristics

Mississippi Hancock County Pearl River County

Population 

Total

Population 

Percent 

Population 

Total

Population 

Percent 

Population 

Total

Population 

Percent 

POPULATION

2,988,081 -- 45,627 -- 55,196 --

AGES

Infant to 19 years of age 824,710 28% 11,224 25% 15,069 27%

20 to 64 years of age 1,751,015 59% 26,555 58% 31,075 56%

65 years of age and over 415,343 14% 7,985 18% 9,052 16%

Median Age 36.5 -- 41.8 -- 40.7 --

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (18 years and over)

Less than high school 

2,251,908

18%

35,311

16%

42,054

16%

High school graduate 30% 29% 30%

Some college or associate’s 26% 35% 52%

Bachelor’s Degree or 

Higher 19% 19% 3%

EMPLOYMENT STATUS (16 and over)

In labor force -- 58% -- 56% -- 53%

Employed -- 52% -- 50% -- 46%

Unemployment rate -- 10% -- 10% -- 12%

Mean travel time to work 

(minutes) 24 -- 29 -- N* --

INCOME

Per Capita Income (in 2014 

inflation-adjusted dollars) $21,057 -- $22,286 -- $19,786 --

Median Income (dollars) by 

households $39,665 -- $43,355 -- $40,976 --

HOUSING

Total Housing Units 1,289,704 -- 23,196 -- 24,423 --

Occupied housing units 1,096,593 85% 18,591 80% 20,606 84%

Average Household size -- 2.64 -- 2.43 -- 2.61

2-person household -- 44% -- 49% -- 45%

3-person household -- 24% -- 22% -- 23%

4 or more person 

household -- 19% -- 18% -- 20%

Owner occupied 749,982 68% 13,270 71% 15,710 76%

Renter occupied 346,611 32% 5,321 29% 4,896 24%

Median 

Home Value

Owner 

Occupied $71,00 $92,500 $76,500

Home 

Values

Less than 

$50,000 154,701 21% 1,709 13% 2168 14%

$50,000 

to 

$99,000

210,938 28% 2,987 23% 4620 29%

$100,000 

to 

$199,999

240,375 32% 5,428 41% 6,153 39%

Source –U.S. Census data, ACS 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates

*An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample 

cases is too small.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-11

SSC provides employment opportunities in coastal Mississippi, drawing workers from, Mississippi, 

Louisiana and Alabama. According to the Gulf Coast Plan for Opportunity individuals traveling to work at 

SSC breaks down as: 

▪ 23 percent from Hancock County, Mississippi;

▪ 16.5 percent from Harrison County, Mississippi;

▪ 3 percent from Jackson County, Mississippi;

▪ 38 percent from counties north of the Mississippi coast;

▪ 18 percent from Louisiana; and

▪ 1.5 percent from Alabama.

Figure 4.3 illustrates those commute patterns. 

Figure 4.3: Commute Pattern

Source: Plan For Opportunity, Mississippi Gulf Coast Sustainable Communities Initiative, Scenario Planning Map Book, April 2013, page 25, 

Criterion Planners.

The mean travel time to work within Mississippi is 24 minutes. Hancock County is marginally higher at 29 

minutes and Pearl River has the highest commute time at 34 minutes. However, none of these are 

exceptionally long commute times as they are rural areas without urban congestion.

4.4.3 Income

Per capita income, or average income, measures the average income earned per person in a given area in a 

specified year. It is calculated by dividing the area’s total income by its total population. The median income 

is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above the 

median amount, and half having income below the median amount. In both per capita and median income,

the counties are greater than the state. Hancock County’s per capita income is the highest at $22,286, with 

Mississippi next at $21.057 and Pearl River County at $19,786. The per capita income of Mississippi is 

lower than other neighboring southern states. Hancock County and Pearl River County falls at the low end 

of that spectrum.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-12

For median income, Hancock County is the highest at $43,355, with Pearl River at $40,976 and Mississippi 

at $39,665. The median income in Hancock County is comparable to other neighboring southern states, 

while Pearl River County and the State of Mississippi come in somewhat lower. 

4.4.4 Housing

Overall average household size for the two counties are again comparable to the state. The counties, at 2.43

in Hancock County and 2.61 persons in Pearl River County, are slightly lower than the state national 

average, of 2.64 persons. The counties exceed the state in owner-occupied residences: Hancock County has 

71 percent, Pearl River County has 76 percent, and Mississippi has 68 percent. The number of owneroccupied homes is noteworthy in light of the unemployment rate.

With regard to the median home values for owner-occupied housing units, Hancock County has the highest

median home value at $92,500, and Pearl River County second with a median home value at $76,500. The 

State of Mississippi median home value is $71,000.

4.4.5 Elderly, Disabled and Youth

Elderly, disabled and youth populations can be especially vulnerable to or effected by transportation 

actions. Several laws help to protect these populations from discrimination including:

▪ The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

disability. Among other things, it requires that transportation projects incorporate ADA compliant 

features into the design and construction while not creating barriers to accessibility. 

▪ The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 requires federal agencies to assure accessibility when 

funding the design and construction of projects. 

▪ Executive Order (EO) 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks, requires federal agencies to minimize environmental health and safety risks to children, and 

to prioritize the identification and assessment of environmental health and safety risks that may 

have a disproportionate impact on children.

Elderly, Disabled and Youth Populations 

The Study Area encompasses two counties, Hancock and Pearl River. Some of the census data for this 

evaluation is not available at the census track or block group level, therefore the county level census data 

is used throughout this section. Additionally, population cohort component numbers are based on 2014 

census estimates rather than the 2010 numbers which are six years old. The use of these numbers is also 

consistent with the census information used in the other sections of the EIS. Table 4.5 shows the area 

population numbers for the elderly, disabled and youth groups.

Table 4.5: Elderly, Disabled and Youth Populations within the Study Area

Hancock Pearl River Total Percentage of 

Population

Total Population 45,627 55,196 100,823 100%

Elderly (65 and over) 7,985 9,052 17,037 17%*

Disabled 8,053 10,559 18,612 19%

Youth (under 19) 11,244 15,069 26,313 26%

Source: U.S. census 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.

*percent estimated from total civilian noninstutional population 45,447 Hancock County and 54,332 Pearl River County
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-13

The elderly population within the Study Area is 17,037 and represents approximately 17 percent of the 

population. Based on a review of the previous census information, this indicates that this is a growing 

population. The 2000 census showed the elderly population to be between 13 and 14 percent. In general, 

this group exhibits higher instances of mobility, visual, auditory or cognitive impairments due to the aging 

process or as a side effect to medication. 

The disabled population is approximately 19 percent of the area population and includes all age categories. 

4.5 Environmental Justice

Executive Order (EO) 12898,

20 issued in 1994, requires federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable 

and permitted by law, to identify and address the potential disproportionately high and adverse human 

health and environmental impacts of their programs, policies and activities on minority and low income 

populations. Federal agency responsibilities under this EO also apply to Native American programs.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2 was issued in 1997 to comply with EO 12898. 

The policy of the DOT Order is to promote the principles of environmental justice in all DOT programs,

which includes the FRA.

EO 12898 provides guidance for identifying and addressing potential project related adverse (or positive) 

effects to low-income and minority populations. Important discussion terms are defined below. 21

▪ Low-income person(s) – Those whose median income is at or below the Department of Health 

and Human Services poverty guidelines.

▪ Low-income population(s) – Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in 

geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons 

(such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed federal 

program, policy or activity.

▪ Minority – A person who is Black/African American, Hispanic or Latino,22 Asian American, 

American Indian and Alaskan Native, and/or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.

▪ Minority Population(s) – Any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in 

geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons 

(such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed federal 

program, policy or activity.

▪ Adverse Effects – The totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or 

environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but 

are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water pollution and 

soil contamination; destruction or disruption of human-made or natural resources; destruction or 

 

20 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-02-16/html/94-3685.htm; accessed 9/25/17

21 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/orders/order_56102a , site visited 7.13.16. Definitions for 

Section 2.1 were also found on this site, which was a redirect from the FRA website.

22The U.S. Census defines Hispanic or Latino Origin as,”...a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other 

Spanish cultural or origin regardless of race.” For respondents unable to identify with the five face categories used since 1997, “Some Other 

Race” was included on the 2000 and 2010 Census questionnaires. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf, website visited 

10.4.16.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-14

diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's 

economic vitality; destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and 

services; vibration; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or 

nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority 

or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and the 

denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits of federal programs, policies, 

or activities.

▪ Disproportionately High and Adverse Effect on Minority and Low-Income Populations - An 

Adverse Effect that:

― is predominantly borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or

― will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably 

more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the 

nonminority population and/or non-low-income population. 

Per FRA guidance, there are three fundamental environmental justice principles:

▪ To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and lowincome populations.

▪ To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation 

decision-making process.

▪ To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and 

low-income populations.

The United Census Bureau American Fact Finder website23 was utilized to gather the raw demographic 

data. Because the American Community Survey (ACS) provided low-income, and minority populations, as 

well as elderly and the disabled, ACS data was used for the analysis, as opposed to a specific census year, 

the 2010-2014 5-year estimates were used for this report. See Section 4.4.3 for Elderly, Disabled and Youth 

discussions.

The U.S. Census Bureau developed a system to divide physical area to gather census data. These areas are 

defined below.

▪ Census tracts (CT) - are small, relatively permanent geographic entities within counties (or the 

statistical equivalent of counties), which generally have 2,500 to 8,000 residents (4,000 is optimal). 

Their boundaries follow visible features. They should be as contiguous as possible with respect to

population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions.

▪ Block groups (BG) - are statistical divisions of census tracts. They are the smallest geographic 

units used to provide public information on population.

 

23 http://factfind.census.gov, website visited July through September 2016
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-15

▪ Block – are the smallest geographic unit used for tabulation of 100-percent data (data collected 

from all houses, rather than a sample of houses).24

The BG was used to determine both minority and low income populations.

4.5.1 Low-Income Population

The Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines have shown that for a family/household 

of 3 persons the poverty threshold is $20,090. 25 The ACS 5-year 2011-2015 estimates that the average 

household size for Mississippi is 2.64. Hancock County has an average household size of 2.43 and Pear

River County is 2.61. 

As of 2015, 14 percent of U.S. households are living below the poverty level based on ACS data. It was 

also estimated that 21 percent of the total household incomes in Mississippi are living below the poverty 

level. Poverty levels within the state have increased from 16 percent in 2000 to 23 percent in 2015. In 

comparison, poverty levels in the U.S. have increased from 11 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2015.26 This 

shows that Mississippi poverty levels increased by 6.3 percent whereas the country, as a whole, increased 

by only 4.3 percent.

From the 2011-2015 5-year Estimates, Hancock County contains 18,591 total households. Of these, 3,798 

or 20.4 percent were below the poverty level. Pearl River County contains 20,606 total households. Of 

these, 4,229 households or 21 percent of all households are below the poverty level. Both are comparable 

to Mississippi in 2015, but higher than the U.S. average (see Table 4.6).

Table 4.6: Low-Income Data 

United States Mississippi Hancock County Pearl River County

Total Households 116,926,305 1,096,593 18,591 20,606

Households with Incomes below 

the poverty level 16,811,595 234,066 3,798 4,229

Percentage of Total Household 

Incomes below the poverty level 14% 21% 20.4% 21%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates

 

24 Data from blocks is not available for these categories.

25 https://aspe.hhs.gov/prior-hhs-poverty-guidelines-and-federal-register-references, website visited 7.13.16

26 Source: U.S. Census Bureau
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-16

Low-income data can be analyzed at the BG level regarding the number of households below the poverty 

level. Table 4.7 and Figure 4.4 provide low-income data for all Census Tracts and Block Groups located 

within the Study Area. There are eleven block groups within the Study Area; of those tracts, seven BG have 

higher percentages of low-income populations than their respective counties, CT 302, BG 5; CT 303, BG 

8; CT 304, BG 2; CT 306.2, BG 3; CT 9505.01, BG 1; CT 9507, BG 2; and CT 9507, BG 4. 

Table 4.7: Low-Income Data by Block Group – Income in 2013 Below Poverty Level

Hancock County Pearl River County

Total County

CT 302, 

BG 5

CT 303, 

BG 8

CT 304, 

BG 1

CT 304, 

BG 2

CT 304, 

BG 3

CT 306.2, BG 

1

CT 306.2, BG 

3

CT 306.2, BG 

4

Total County

CT 9505.01, 

BG 1

CT 9507, 

BG 2

CT9507 

BG 4

Total 

Households 18,591 149 996 260 346 416 581 421 471 20,606 749 1,013 837

Income 

below 

poverty 

level

3,798 63 357 0 96 40 35 202 35 4,229 285 263 364

Percentage 

of Total 

Household 

Incomes 

below the 

poverty 

level 

20.0% 42.3% 35.8% 0% 27.7% 9.6% 6.0% 47.9% 7.4% 21.0% 38.0% 25.9% 43.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates

In Hancock County, Census Tract 306.2, BG 3, has 47.9 percent of households below the poverty level; 

this is higher than Hancock County as a whole, with 20.0 percent (a difference of 27.9%). This Block Group 

is located from approximately I-10 north to Pearl River County, west to Louisiana and east to Kiln. This 

area has no inhabitants due to the SSC acoustical buffer zone. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-17

Figure 4.4: Low Income Population
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-18

4.5.1 Minority Populations

According to 2010 census data, the U.S. had 74 percent of the population identified as white, with 26 

percent of the population identified as minorities. In comparison, the state of Mississippi, has identified 59 

percent of the population as white and 41 percent identified as minority.

According to the ACS 2011-2015 5-year estimates, both counties in the Study Area are predominantly 

white at 87 percent in Hancock County and 84 percent in Pearl River County. Minority population is 

estimated at 13 percent for Hancock County and 16 percent in Pearl River County. The largest minority 

population in both counties is Black/African Americans at 9 percent in Hancock County and 14 percent in 

Pearl River County. All other minorities combined in Hancock County comprise approximately 4.0 percent 

of the overall population and in Pearl River County they comprise approximately 2.0 percent. Table 4.8

shows the comparison between the U.S., State of Mississippi, and counties within the Study Area.

Table 4.8: Minority Data 

United States Mississippi Hancock County Pearl River County

Total Population Race 316,515,021 2,988,081 45,627 55,196

White 74% 59% 87% 84%

Minority 26% 41% 13% 16%

As noted previously, there are eleven block groups within the Study Area. Of those tracts, five BG have 

higher percentages of minority populations than their respective counties; CT 303, BG 8; CT 304, BG 2; 

CT 306.2, BG 3; CT 9507, BG 2; and CT 9507, BG 4 (see Table 4.9 and Figure 4.5).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-19

Table 4.9: Minority Populations by Block Group

Race Total Population White Minority

HANCOCK COUNTY MISSISSIPPI

Total County

Number 45,627 39,686 5,941

% of Total 100% 87% 13%

CT 302, BG 5

Number 425 417 8

% of Total 100% 98% 2%

CT 303, BG 8

Number 2,667 2,124 543

% of Total 100% 80% 20%

CT 304, BG 1

Number 686 637 49

% of Total 100% 93% 7%

CT 304, BG 2

Number 870 431 439

% of Total 100% 50% 50%

CT 304, BG 3

Number 926 858 68

% of Total 100% 93% 7%

CT 306.02, BG 1

Number 1,540 1388 152

% of Total 100% 90% 10%

CT 306.02, BG 3

Number 810 546 264

% of Total 100% 67% 33%

CT 306.02, BG 4

Number 1,083 959 124

% of Total 100% 89% 11%

PEARL RIVER COUNTY MISSISSIPPI

Total County

Number 55,196 46,411 8,785

% of Total 100% 84% 16%

CT 9505.01, BG 1

Number 2,027 1,732 295

% of Total 100% 85% 15%

CT 9507, BG 2

Number 2,930 2,268 662

% of Total 100% 77% 23%

CT 9507, BG 4

Number 2,213 1,533 680

% of Total 100% 69% 31%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates, Block Groups in blue are those which have higher percentages than their respective 

counties.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-20

Figure 4.5: Minority Population
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-21

4.6 Communities and Community Facilities

There are three named communities (census designated places – CDP) within the Study Area: Nicholson,

located in Pearl River County, and Pearlington and Kiln, located in Hancock County. (See Table 4.10 and

Figure 4.6) Also, there are two rural residential areas, the Joe Fleming Road neighborhood in Pearl River 

County and Old Lower Bay Road neighborhood in Hancock County. Several schools, churches, cemeteries, 

public facilities, parks and recreation and emergency services facilities are also present within the Study 

Area. Resources near, but outside the Study Area boundary have also been identified to determine if their

access would be affected by project implementation. Most the Study Area is within an acoustical buffer 

zone that was established by SSC. All residents were evacuated from this acoustical buffer zone in July 

1964, and inhabitable structures were no longer allowed in this area.27 Therefore, much of the Study Area 

is located within a federally regulated undevelopable/unpopulated area. 

Table 4.10: Communities

Road Name Type of Community Within the Study Area?

PEARL RIVER COUNTY

Picayune Incorporated No

Nicholson CDP** Yes

Joe Fleming Road neighborhood Neighborhood Yes

HANCOCK COUNTY

Pearlington CDP** Yes

Ansley Community* Yes

Old Lower Bay Road neighborhood Neighborhood Yes

Kiln CDP** Yes, partially

Bayside Park Residential Community No

Waveland Incorporated No

Lakeshore Unincorporated No

Clermont Harbor Unincorporated No

*Ansley is too small to be included in the U.S. Census data collection as a community by itself.

**A census-designated place (CDP) is a concentration of population identified by the United States Census Bureau for statistical purposes. CDPs 

are delineated for each decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places, such as cities, towns, and villages, but which lack 

separate municipal governments.

4.6.1 Parks and Recreation

There are 11 parks and recreation areas within or immediately adjacent to the Study Area. These areas are 

located within Hancock County and include: three parks (one is a nature trail only), four boat launches, 

three RV parks/campgrounds and one fish camp. The location of the facilities can be found on Figure 4.7

and are listed in Table 4.11.

 

27 NASA - Stennis Space Center, www.ssc.nasa.gov, website visited 3.23.16
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-22

Figure 4.6: Communities
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-23

Figure 4.7: Park and Recreation Areas
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-24

Table 4.11: Hancock County Parks and Recreation Areas

Name Location Type of Facility

PARKS

Possum Walk Heritage Trail Unincorporated Hancock/Pearlington Public

McLeod Park Kiln Public

Whites Road Park Pearlington Public

RECREATION FACILITIES

Port Bienville Industrial Park Boat Launch Unincorporated Port Bienville Public

Pearlington Landing Boat Launch Unincorporated Pearlington Public

Turtle Landing Fish Camp Unincorporated Pearlington Private

Curtis Johnson Waterfront Park and Boat Launch Unincorporated Hancock County Public

Logtown Boat Launch Unincorporated Hancock County Public

Sunrise RV Park and Campground Pearlington Private

White’s Bayou RV Park Pearlington Private

Nella’s RV Park Kiln Private

The three park facilities in the Study Area include:

▪ Possum Walk Heritage Trail is a 3-mile path that runs from the INFINITY Science Center at SSC 

to the historic site of Logtown, near Pearlington. The trail itself ends at the Logtown Boat Launch. 

Possum Walk was an African-American community and markers on the trail tell its history. The 

path can be walked or an electric-powered shaded tram is available for a fee.

▪ McLeod Park is owned by the Pearl River Basin Development District and is operated and 

maintained by the Hancock County Board of Supervisors. The park is located on Texas Flat Road 

in Kiln within the SSC buffer zone, west of Stennis International Airport. The 328-acre park is on 

the Jourdan River and lake. It offers fishing, swimming, boating, and a 1.25-mile natural trail. One 

of the main features of the park is a 95-site campground, which includes both RV and tent camping. 

Other amenities include a playground, basketball court, beaches, and picnic pavilions. The park is 

handicap accessible. 

▪ Whites Road Park, located in Pearlington is approximately 0.43-acre. Amenities include a 

basketball court, playground equipment, and a picnic tables, including a picnic shelter on the edge 

of a wooded area.

In addition, five public recreational facilities are located within or adjacent to the Study Area:

▪ Port Bienville Industrial Park Boat Launch is a county-owned boat launch located within Port 

Bienville Industrial Park. A concrete ramp/launch provides access to the industrial channel off the 

Pearl River. The site was upgraded in 2014 to include an improved ramp, piers and walkways.

▪ Pearlington Landing Boat Launch is public boat launch owned by Hancock County. It includes a 

concrete ramp and two fishing piers, which provide access to the Pearl River. 

▪ Turtle Landing Fish Camp, a privately-owned resource, is located adjacent to U.S. 90, southeast of 

Pearlington. It includes a boat launch, fishing pier, store and restaurant. Although it is privately 

owned, the boat launch is open to the public.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-25

▪ The Curtis Johnson Waterfront Park and Boat Launch is also located within the Study Area, on the 

Pearl River, approximately 6.5 miles from the SSC. It is sponsored by the Hancock County Board 

of Supervisors. The amenities include a boat launch and two fishing piers. 

▪ Logtown Boat Launch and the Pearlington Landing Boat Launch, both located on the Pearl River, 

are operated by the Hancock County Board of Supervisors. The Logtown location is the northern 

of the two. It has only a dirt and gravel ramp/launch. Any dock or permeable ramp that may have 

existed prior to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 has not been replaced. The Pearlington Landing Boat 

Launch is immediately west of Pearlington and has a boat launch and two fishing piers.

There are also three RV parks/campgrounds located within the Study Area: Nella’s RV Park in Kiln; Sunrise 

RV Park and Campground in Pearlington; and White’s Bayou RV Park, also in Pearlington. Nella’s is 

located on 3 acres and offers 32 full hookup RV sites. Sunrise RV Park and Campground in Pearlington, is 

located on 5 acres and offers 15 RV full hookups and an unlimited area for tent camping. The facility is 

approximately 3.0 miles from the Pearl River and is convenient to boating, cycling, fishing, and birding 

trails. White’s Bayou RV Park in Pearlington is located on 3.5 acres and it offers 30 hookup RV sites, as 

well as bayou water access with a pier and boat launch. There are also fish camp sites, but tent camping is 

not offered. 

4.6.2 Community Services

An essential part of any community is the services and resources available, whether they be public or private 

facilities. Generally, community public facilities include, but are not limited to buildings, recreation areas, 

and roads, owned, leased, or otherwise operated, or funded by a governmental body or public entity. 

Specific examples may include: hospitals, schools, fire and police stations; sports venues; exhibition and 

convention centers; and cultural and community centers. Some of those mentioned may also be privately 

owned but open to the public. Additional examples may include: theaters, live performance venues, and 

cultural organizations such as science centers and museums, among others.

Schools

Within this Study Area, there are two school districts, Picayune and Hancock County. There are 20 public 

schools within these two school districts serving a total of approximately 9,550 students. 

The Picayune School District at the northern section of the Study Area includes 12 schools, including one 

Catholic School (see Table 4.12 and Figure 4.8). Approximately 4,363 students attend pre-school through 

the 12th grade in the Picayune School District. Of the 12 schools within the Picayune School District, only 

Nichols Elementary School is located within the Study Area.

The Hancock County School District covers the southern portion of the Study Area and includes eight 

schools, six of which are in Kiln. Also in Kiln is the Hancock County school bus maintenance facility. 

Approximately 5,187 students attend pre-school through the 12th grade in the Hancock County School 

District. Of the eight schools within the Hancock County School District, only South Hancock Elementary, 

Hancock Middle School, and Hancock High School are located within the Study Area.

Also within the Study Area are trust lands known as 16th Section Land (see Figure 4.8). The State of 

Mississippi owns these lands and the Mississippi public school districts serve as trustees for these lands. 

The Mississippi Secretary of State supervises the trustees. These lands were set aside by the Land Ordinance 

of 1785 for the use and benefit of public schools.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-26

Table 4.12: Public Schools Within or Adjacent to Study Area

Picayune School District Hancock County School District

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Nicholson Elementary School

1887 Highway 11 South Picayune, MS 39466

East Hancock Elementary School 

4221 Kiln Delisle Rd. Kiln, MS 39556

West Side Elementary School

111 Kirkwood St. Picayune, MS 39466

Hancock North Central Elementary School

6122 Cuevas Town Rd. Kiln, MS 39556

South Side Upper Elementary 

1500 Rosa St. Picayune, MS 39466

South Hancock Elementary 

6590 Lakeshore Rd. Bay St. Louis, MS 39520

South Side Lower Elementary 

400 South Beech St. Picayune, MS 39466

West Hancock Elementary School

23350 Highway 43 Picayune, MS 39466

Roseland Park Elementary School

1610 Gilcrease Ave. Picayune, MS 39466601

Early Head Start Nicholson

1865 Hwy 11 South Picayune, MS 39466

Picayune Early Head Start 

1620 Rosa Street Picayune, MS 39466

MIDDLE/JUNIOR HIGH/HIGH SCHOOLS

Picayune Junior High School

702 Goodyear Blvd, Picayune, MS 39466

Hancock Middle School 

7070 Stennis Airport Rd Kiln, MS 39556

Picayune Memorial High School 

800 5th Ave. Picayune, MS 39466

Hancock High School

7084 Stennis Airport Dr. Kiln, MS 39556

ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION/CAREER AND TECHNICAL CENTERS

Center for Alternative Education 

900 East Third St. Picayune, MS 39466

Hancock Alternative Education Setting 

7060 Stennis Airport Dr. Kiln, MS 39556

PMHS Career and Tech Center 

600 Goodyear Blvd. Picayune, MS 39466

Hancock County Career Technical Center

7180 Stennis Airport Rd. Kiln, MS 39556

PRIVATE SCHOOLS

St. Charles Borromeo Catholic School

1006 Goodyear Blvd. Picayune, MS 39466

Note: The schools in shaded boxes are located within the Study Area.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-27

Figure 4.8: Schools/Churches/Cemeteries
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-28

Churches and Cemeteries

There are 35 churches and 17 cemeteries identified within and immediately adjacent to the Study Area. 

Only 8 churches and 8 cemeteries (two cemeteries are associated with a church) are located inside the Study 

Area, all in Hancock County. The cemeteries shown on Figure 4.8 and listed in Table 4.13 are only those 

that appear to be open to the public as opposed to private family cemeteries. 

Table 4.13: Churches and Cemeteries in Study Area

Name Location County

CHURCHES IN STUDY AREA

First Southern Baptist Church Pearlington Hancock

New Hope Baptist Church (and Cemetery) Pearlington Hancock

Homes Chapel United Methodist Pearlington Hancock

Greater Mt. Zion AME Church Pearlington Hancock

Pearlington United Methodist Church Pearlington Hancock

Pearlington Church of Christ Pearlington Hancock

Cedar Grove Church Nicholson Pearl River

Old Palestine Landmark Church (and Cemetery) Nicholson Pearl River

CEMETERIES IN STUDY AREA

Bayou Caddy Cemetery Bay St. Louis Hancock

Logtown Cemetery Pearlington Hancock

The Point Cemetery Pearlington Hancock

Napoleon Cemetery Pearlington Hancock

Turtleskin Cemetery Unincorporated Hancock County Hancock

Flat Top-Harmony Baptist Church Cemetery Unincorporated Hancock County Hancock

Public Government Facilities

There are a total 18 public facilities that are owned by federal, state, or county agencies in Hancock and 

Pearl River Counties within and near the Study Area. Of the eleven facilities in Hancock County, eight are 

within the Study Area and are shown in Table 4.14. There is one additional facility in the Study Area in 

Pearl River County, the Nicholson U.S. Post Office. The SCC facility is closed to the public except for the 

visitor center/INFINITY Science Center.

Table 4.14: Public Government Facilities

Name Location Facility Type County

FEDERAL

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) –

Stennis Space Center (SSC) SSC Public Hancock

General Services Administration (GSA) SSC Public Hancock

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/Environmental 

Chemistry SSC Public Hancock

National Weather Service(NWS)/National Data Buoy 

Center SSC Public Hancock

U.S. Post Office Nicholson Public Pearl River

COUNTIES

Port Bienville Industrial Park Waveland Public Hancock

Hancock County Public Safety Complex Bay St. Louis Public Hancock

Hancock County Animal Shelter Kiln Public Hancock
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-29

Public/Private Social and Cultural Facilities

Facilities that provide cultural, educational or social opportunities have also been identified within the Study 

Area. There is one facility within the Study Area in Hancock County, which is the science museum and 

visitor center at SSC called INFINITY. Originally, visitors to SSC could tour a small visitor center, 

StenniSphere, to learn about the federal and state labs located in the research complex hosted by NASA. In 

2001, a non-profit foundation was formed to create a science center that would serve as a regional focal 

point for science research and science education. This goal developed into INFINITY, a non-profit science 

museum that opened in 2013, which is “...dedicated to providing a quality fun, and fascinating learning 

experience.”28

Medical and Health Services

North of the Study Area is Hattiesburg Clinic – Picayune and the Gulf Coast Mental Health Clinic. To the 

south of the Study Area, is the Hancock Medical Center in Bay St. Louis and Waveland Medical Center in 

Waveland, Mississippi. The Hancock Medical Center – Family Health Clinic (Medical Services Port), 

located within the Port Bienville Industrial Park is the only medical center located within the Study Area.

See Figure 4.9. 

The closest emergency rooms to the Study Area are available at Hancock Medical Center in Bay St. Louis, 

approximately 13 miles from the Study Area and Pearl River County Hospital in Poplarville, Mississippi, 

approximately 32 miles from the Study Area. At the southern end of the Study Area, the closest ambulance 

services are provided by American Medical Response in Bay St. Louis. The closest ambulance services at 

the northern end of the Study Area are provided by AAA Ambulance Services in Hattiesburg. 

Emergency Services – Law Enforcement and Emergency Management

Law Enforcement

The Study Area falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the Hancock County Sheriff’s office, with the area 

in Picayune falling under the jurisdiction of the Picayune Police Department. Generally, most law 

enforcement and fire departments have mutual aid agreements, so that they assist each other if larger scale 

incidents occur. Five police/sheriff stations are located within 10 miles of the Study Area - four in Hancock 

County, and one in Pearl River County. The Hancock County Public Safety Complex is the only one within 

the Study Area (see Figure 4.9 and Table 4.15).

Table 4.15: Law Enforcement and Fire Departments

Name Location Facility Type County

POLICE/SHERIFF

Hancock Public Safety 

Complex Bay St. Louis Public Hancock

FIRE DEPARTMENTS

SSC SSC Private Hancock

West Hancock Volunteer 

Fire Department Pearlington Public Hancock

Nicholson Volunteer Fire 

Department Nicholson Public Pearl River

 

28 http://www.visitinfinity.com/about/our-history/, website visited 9.19.16
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-30

Figure 4.9: Medical and Emergency Services and Evacuation Routes Map
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-31

The Hancock County Public Safety Complex, which is located on U.S. 90, includes a county jail. The 

Hancock County Sheriff’s Office patrols all unincorporated areas plus SSC, and Diamondhead29, although 

the SSC complex has their own security contractor that offers a “911” dispatch center.30

Fire Departments 

Three fire departments are located in the Study Area (see Table 4.15): 

▪ West Hancock Volunteer Fire Department in Pearlington;

▪ SSC Fire Department within SSC;

▪ Nicholson Volunteer Fire Department in Nicholson. 

Emergency Management

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has a national alert system to disseminate 

information across the entire country as needed. They also assist with post-disaster relief. The Mississippi 

Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) also has an alert system in place. MEMA has nine districts, 

each with an area coordinator, within their emergency management program. Both Hancock and Pearl River 

Counties are within MEMA District 9. The MEMA website provides emergency preparedness information, 

including evacuation procedures and surge mapping.31 The Mississippi Department of Transportation 

(MDOT) also offers emergency services under their Office of Enforcement. This includes, “...emergency 

plan development and maintenance; coordination of emergency response operations, coordination of state 

and federal emergency preparedness and response programs; and coordination of Homeland Security 

initiatives.”32 Hancock County provides a service for which residents can register called, FirstCall. This 

Emergency Notification Service can immediately deliver emergency alerts to citizens and first responders 

regarding important timely information about hurricanes and other high profile events occurring in the area. 

These alerts are sent to landlines, cell phones, SMS text messaging devices, and emails. Mass numbers of 

residents can be alerted with important information in five minutes or less.33 Bay St. Louis uses a similar 

system called Blackboard Connect.34 These types of alert systems allow citizens to more quickly and 

efficiently access appropriate routes in times when evacuations are necessary. The Pearl River County 

website also offers guidance for disaster preparedness related to hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, nuclear, 

floods, winter weather, and disaster kit preparation. 

The Hancock County Emergency Management Agency, located in Pearl, Mississippi, provided evacuation 

zone and route maps; however, no specific emergency plans or evacuation plans were made available. The 

following are the closest evacuation routes within the Study Area: I-10, U.S. 90, SR 607 and I-59 (see

Figure 4.9). SR 43 and SR 603 are also designated Evacuation Routes; however, they would be utilized 

traveling north from Kiln, which is outside of the Study Area.

 

29 http://www.hancockso.com/faqs.html, website visited 9.19.16

30 http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/doing_business_with_ssc_2016.pdf, website visited 9.19.16

31 http://www.msema.org.php53-4.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/county-emergency-management/, website visited 9.19.16. The Hancock 

County website provides similar information, but references the MEMA Area Coordinator.

32http://mdot.ms.gov/portal/emergency_services.aspx?open=Hurricane%20Evacuation, website visited 9.19.16

33http://www.hancockcounty.ms.gov/Pages/E-911.aspx, website visited 9.19.16

34http://baystlouis-ms.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=87, website visited 9.19.16
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-32

4.7 Cultural Resources

The Project is subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. § 470, et seq.) and its implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. 800). Specifically, Section 

106 of the NHPA requires that the responsible federal agency consider the effects of its actions on historic 

properties, which are properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP), and provide the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an 

opportunity to comment on the undertaking.

Each cultural resource encountered as part of the Project investigation is documented in the Draft Cultural 

Resource Report (See Appendix B) and was assessed for potential eligibility for listing on the NRHP based 

on the significance criteria set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.4, shown below. The Criteria for Evaluation are 

based on the quality of significance in American history architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture 

are present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and that:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our 

history; or 

B. Are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or 

C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent 

the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. Have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.35

A resource may be eligible under one or more of these criteria. Criteria A, B, and C are most frequently 

applied to historic buildings, structures, objects, districts, or non- archaeological sites (e.g., battlefields, 

natural features, designed landscapes, or cemeteries). The eligibility of archaeological sites is most 

frequently considered with respect to Criterion D. Also, a general guideline of 50 years of age is employed 

to define “historic” in the NRHP evaluation process. That is, all resources greater than 50 years of age may 

be considered. However, more recent resources may be considered if they display “exceptional” 

significance.

4.7.1 Archaeological Resources

The archaeological APE was established as a 100-foot buffer on either side of the centerline of the proposed 

rail line, resulting in a total Survey Corridor width of 200 feet. See Figure 4.10. The APE was presented 

to MDAH in a field survey methodology report in March 2016; MDAH concurred with methodology, 

including the APE. See Appendix H, Agency Correspondence.

The archaeological site files at the MDAH were consulted to determine the archaeological sites on record

within one kilometer of the APE. A total of 19 sites were identified, 14 in Hancock County and five in Pearl 

River County (See Draft Cultural Resource Report in Appendix B). None of these sites are within the 

Archaeological APE.

 

35 http://history.nd.gov/hp/nreligibility.html, accessed 9.25.17
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-33

Figure 4.10: Cultural Resources APEs
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-34

A total of 24 previously unrecorded archaeological sites were identified within the APE during the field 

surveys. Thirteen of the 24 linear sites have been determined as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Eleven 

sites are considered as unknown for their eligibility determination.

4.7.2 Architectural Resources

The architectural APE was established as being a 246.06-foot (75 meter) buffer around the archaeological 

APE, resulting in a Survey Corridor width of approximately 700 feet. See Figure 4.10. The APE was 

presented to MDAH in a field survey methodology report in March 2016; MDAH concurred with the 

methodology, including the APE. See Appendix H, Agency Correspondence.

The architectural site files at MDAH were consulted to determine the architectural sites on record within 

one kilometer of the APE. A total of five previously recorded cultural sites were identified (See Draft 

Cultural Resource Report in Appendix B) within one kilometer of the APE. However, none of these sites 

fall within the Architectural APE. 

▪ The Hancock County Bombing Range is identified as site 045-BSL-6003. Its historic use is listed 

is military, miscellaneous, and is associated with the World War II theme. No specific site location 

is given. However, the bombing range’s historic boundaries are known and a small part lies within 

the Architectural APE.

▪ Site 109-NIC-0001 is the Nicholson School (White) complex. It is located at 1887 Highway 11, 

South, in Nicholson, Pearl River County. Site 109-NIC-0001.1 is the Administration Building for 

the Nicholson School (White) complex located in Nicholson, Pearl River County. It was designed 

by Robert Watts in the Colonial Revival style and built in 1951. It is not located within the 

Architectural APE.

▪ Site 109-NIC-0001.2-X is the Teacher’s House associated with the Nicholson School (White) 

complex located in Nicholson, Pearl River County. It is a Craftsman Bungalow and its estimated 

date of construction is circa 1930.

▪ Site 109-NIC-3001 is the (old) Alligator Creek Bridge. It is located along SR 607 near Nicholson 

in Pearl River County and its estimated construction is circa 1930.

▪ The Rocket Propulsion Test Complex at Stennis Space Center received National Historic Landmark 

designation and NRHP listing in 1985, for its association with the Apollo program. Those same 

structures were determined eligible as part of the Space Shuttle program, evaluated in 2008.

Three newly recorded historic resources were identified within the Architechural APE during the field 

survey. All three were built by Southern Railway for transporting construction materials and other material 

to the Mississippi Test Operations site, now known as the John C. Stennis Space Center. None of these sites 

are considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. The three resources are described below:

▪ Southern Railroad Bridge over Second Alligator Creek is an open-deck timber trestle, 

approximately 145 feet long. The trestle bridge design includes five timber piles, sway bracing, 

and reinforced concrete bent caps. The bridge was a part of the Southern Railway’s 10.5 mile track 

between New Orleans and Northeastern main line in Nicholson, and what was originally known as 

NASA’s Mississippi Test Operations site. Work began on the line in March 1963 and was 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-35

completed in May 1963. NASA used the line, known locally as “the NASA Turn” to transport 

construction materials for its facility. 

▪ Southern Railroad Bridge over I-59 and Alligator Branch is a two-span through plate girder bridge, 

approximately 145 feet long. Bridge design includes two concrete piers that serve as abutments on 

either side of the divided highway and a two-part concrete bent in the median. The bridge was a 

part of the Southern Railway’s 10.5 mile track between New Orleans and Northeastern main line 

in Nicholson, and what was originally known as NASA’s Mississippi Test Operations site. Work 

began on the line in March 1963 and was completed in May 1963. NASA used the line, known 

locally as “the NASA Turn” to transport construction materials for its facility. 

▪ Southern Railroad Culvert over Indian Camp Branch is a tow-part, prefabricated corrugated metal 

pipe culvert. The culvert design is simply the two large, unconnected pipes with no wing walls or 

headwall. Given that the culvert was prefabricated and then placed in its current location, it is 

difficult to determine if this is the original drainage structure for the Southern Railway extension 

to the NASA facility, which was built in 1963. The bridge was a part of the Southern Railway’s 

10.5 mile track between New Orleans and Northeastern main line in Nicholson, and what was 

originally known as NASA’s Mississippi Test Operations site. Work began on the line in March 

1963 and was completed in May 1963. NASA used the line, known locally as “the NASA Turn” 

to transport construction materials for its facility. 

4.7.3 Tribal Coordination

FRA and MDOT have initiated coordination with Native American Tribes. The tribes were sent Project 

information, maps and GIS data related to the study area. 

The following federally recognized Native American tribes were contacted:

▪ Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

▪ Chickasaw Nation

▪ Jena Band of Choctaw

▪ Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana, Inc.

▪ Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

▪ Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma

▪ Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

▪ Muscogee Creek Nation

The Muscogee Creek Nation responded that they had no objections to the Project. The Muscogee Creek 

Nation, Alabama Coushatta Tribe and Jena Band of Choctaw requested the Cultural Resources studies, 

once completed. 

4.8 Federally Funded and Protected Public Facilities

Certain classes of properties have special federal protection and must be considered when assessing the 

potential effects of a proposed U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) project. This section addresses 

both Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) properties.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-36

4.8.1 Section 4(f)

Properties that are designated as being historic sites, public parks/recreation areas, as well as 

wildlife/waterfowl refuges are protected under Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 

Section 303(c)). FRA cannot approve the use of these properties for transportation projects. There are three 

standard categories under which changes to land use occur.

1. Permanent Incorporation – land acquisition

2. Temporary Occupancy – such as construction staging or closing of a portion of the property

3. Constructive Use – usually access or noise related 

Transportation projects may not encroach or in any way infringe upon Section 4(f) properties unless there 

is: 

▪ No feasible and prudent alternative to avoid the protected property, and 

▪ The proposed Project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the protected property. 

In August 2005, Section 4(f) requirements were revised to simplify the process and approvals on project 

that have a de minimis impact and moves Section 4(f) regulations to 23 CFR 774. There are no historic 

sites within the APE for the Project. There are no wildlife/waterfowl refuges within the Study Area. There 

are four parks identified as Section 4(f) properties that area located within the Study Area, including 

McLeod Park, Whites Road Park, Pearlington Boat Launch and Curtis Johnson Boat Launch; all are in 

Hancock County. These properties are shown in Figure 4.11.

McLeod Park is located at 8100 Texas Flat Road, Kiln, MS and is located within the SSC acoustical buffer 

zone. The 328-acre public park located on the Jourdan River offers boating, fishing, swimming, hiking, 

both RV and tent camping, picnicking and a playground. Hours of operation are from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. 

It is owned by Pearl River Basin Development District and operated and maintained by Hancock County 

Board of Supervisors.

Whites Road Park is located 16641 Whites Road in Pearlington. This is a small roadside park with some 

play equipment, a basketball court and a picnic shelter. The hours of operation are not listed for this public 

park.

The Pearlington Boat Launch is located at 17094 Monroe Street, Pearlington MS, 39572. The boat launch 

is open to the public from 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset.

The Curtis Johnson Boat Launch is located on a dirt road leading to the Pearl River. It is north of I-10 

and off Shuttle Parkway. This county maintained public boat launch is also known as Napoleon landing. 

The boat launch is approximately 7.4 miles from the reasonable alternative corridor.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-37

Figure 4.11: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-38

4.8.2 Section 6(f) 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) provides another class of federally 

protected properties. The properties within this group received LWCFA funding to purchase or develop 

lands for recreation use. The purpose of Section 6(f) is to preserve lands having received these funds for 

continual public recreational use. 

In addition to being protected as Section 4(f) properties, both McLeod Park and Whites Road Park received 

Section 6(f) funds.

4.9 Air Quality

4.9.1 Air Quality and Climate Change

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for atmospheric pollutants that are considered harmful to public health in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act of 1970.36 The MDEQ Air Division is responsible for regulating and ensuring compliance 

with the Clean Air Act in Mississippi. The criteria pollutants that are measured under NAAQS are carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

The United States is divided into geographical areas that are classified as either in attainment or nonattainment for air quality. Geographic areas that have criteria pollutants below NAAQS standards are 

considered to be in attainment. If an area has exceeded the NAAQS levels for any of the six criteria 

pollutants, then it is in non-attainment for those pollutants. In non-attainment areas, the General Conformity 

rule ensures that the actions taken by federal agencies do not contribute to violations of the NAAQS and/or

interfere with a state’s plans to attain national standards for air quality. 

The Study Area is lightly populated, with undeveloped land and scattered industrial infrastructure, including 

the SSC. The area within approximately 10 miles of the Project corridor is classified as in “attainment” for 

all NAAQS. St. Bernard Parish in Louisiana, which borders the southern side of Hancock County, is 

designated as nonattainment for the sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. However, this is due to emissions in the 

New Orleans area, well over 10 miles from the Study Area.

The nearest air quality monitoring site is in Waveland, approximately 10 miles east-northeast of the 

southern end of the proposed Study Area. The monitor in Waveland is located at 400 Baltic Street, and has 

monitors for ozone (O3) and particles under 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). EPA uses an average across 

the most recent three years of monitor data to determine whether a given area is meeting the NAAQS. Table 

4.16 shows a summary of 2013-2015 monitor data for the Waveland site, indicating compliance with the 

NAAQS for 8-hour average O3 concentration and for 24-hour (average 98th percentile) and annual average 

PM2.5 concentrations.

 

36 https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/evolution-clean-air-act#caa70; accessed 10/30/17
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-39

Table 4.16: Summary of Local Air Quality Monitoring Data

Year

O3 (ppm) PM2.5 (μg/m3)

Fourth Max 8Hr 24-hr 98th % Annual Mean

2013 0.063 16 8

2014 0.069 21 9

2015 0.061 18 8.9

Average 0.064 18 8.6

NAAQS 0.070 35 12

https://www3.epa.gov/airdata/

While elevated levels of O3 and PM2.5 can be caused by emissions from distant sources, elevated levels of 

the remainder of the NAAQS-regulated pollutants are generally caused only by large localized sources of 

emissions.

Based on EPA’s most recent (2011) National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database, NAAQS-regulated 

pollutant sources within 10 miles of the Study Area had only small to moderate emissions, at less than 1 

ton/year to under 200 tons/year per facility. There were only about dozen of these facilities within a few 

miles of the Study Area, and therefore, the Study Area is expected to remain in “attainment” for all NAAQSregulated pollutants for the foreseeable future. For this reason, a conformity analysis is not required.

4.10 Noise and Vibration 

The noise and vibrations assessments were performed in accordance with the general assessment procedures 

outlined in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment report (FTA-VA-90-1003-06) adopted by 

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in May 2006. Noise and vibration assessments were also 

performed based on an FRA guidance document (Final EIS for locomotive horn rule),

37 with recommended 

adjustments to apply FTA methodologies to freight train analyses. 

4.10.1 Noise Descriptors

Noise is unwanted or undesirable sound. The intensity or loudness of a sound is determined by how much 

the sound pressure fluctuates. For convenience, sound pressure is expressed in decibel (dB) notation. 

Most sounds consist of a broad range of sound frequencies, from low frequencies to high frequencies. The 

average human ear does not perceive all frequencies equally. The A-weighting scale represents noise levels 

to approximate the way the human ear responds to sound levels, applying less “weight” to frequencies we 

do not hear well, and more “weight” to frequencies we do hear well. Typical A-weighted noise levels for 

sound sources are summarized in Figure 4.12.

 

37 https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0889, accessed 9/25/17.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-40

Figure 4.12: Typical Noise Levels

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06)

The equivalent average sound level (Leq) describes sound levels that vary over a 1-hour period. The Leq is 

often described as the constant sound level that is an equivalent exposure level to the actual time-varying 

sound level over the period (hour). 

A common community noise rating is the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn). The Ldn is the 

24-hour Leq but includes a 10-dBA penalty on noise that occurs during the nighttime hours (between 10 PM 

and 7 AM) where sleep interference might be an issue. The 10-dBA penalty makes the Ldn useful when 

assessing noise in residential areas or for land uses where overnight sleep occurs. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-41

4.10.2 Noise Evaluation Criteria

Noise Sensitive Land Uses

FTA/FRA noise impact thresholds are a function of land use type and existing noise exposure. The 

FTA/FRA differentiates noise-sensitive land uses into three distinct categories. Table 4.17 summarizes the 

land use categories and associated noise metrics.

Table 4.17: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Noise Impact Criteria

Land Use Category Noise Metric (dBA) Description of Land Use Category

Category 1 Outdoor Leq (h) a

Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended 

purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, 

and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as 

well as National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. Also 

included are recording studios and concert halls.

Category 2 Outdoor Ldn

Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category 

includes homes, hospitals and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to 

noise is assumed to be of utmost importance.

Category 3 Outdoor Leq (h) a

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This 

category includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is

important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, 

meditation and concentration on reading material. Places for meditation 

or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, 

campgrounds and recreational facilities can also be considered in this 

category. Certain historical sites and parks are also included.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06)

a

Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity

Parks that are used for passive recreation such as reading, meditation or sedate conversation are noise 

sensitive Category 3 land uses, whereas parks used for active recreation such as sporting fields, 

playgrounds, or areas where social groups gather are not considered noise-sensitive. 

The Ldn descriptor is used to assess transit-related noise for residential areas and land uses where overnight 

sleep occurs (Category 2). The Leq descriptor is used to assess transit-related noise at other noise-sensitive 

land uses (Category 1 and Category 3), specifically during the noisiest hour of transit-related activity 

concurrent with the receptors’ hours of noise sensitivity. 

A unique aspect of the study area is the Stennis Space Center (SSC), a NASA facility centrally located 

within the study area. The SSC is surrounded by a 125,000-acre acoustical buffer zone which makes up the 

majority of the study area. The purpose of the buffer is to mitigate noise impacts associated with the testing 

of various rocket engines. Habitation and building structures that could be inhabited are strictly prohibited 

within the buffer zone, which is enforced by SSC. Since no inhabitable structures are allowed within the 

SSC buffer zone, there are no receptors within this area. 

Since no receptors are located within the SSC acoustical buffer zone, this noise assessment applies only to 

the very northern-most portion of the study area and the southern-most portion of the Study Area where the 

track alignment extends and terminates beyond the limits of the buffer zone. 

The Project corridor extends approximately 1.2 miles north of the SSC acoustical buffer, towards and into 

the town of Nicholson, MS. Land use in this northern portion of the Project includes rural undeveloped 

(wooded) in the areas closest to the SSC, a highway, and scattered residences as the corridor moves closer 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-42

to the town of Nicholson. The Project corridor also extends approximately 2 miles south of the SSC. Land 

use adjacent to this portion of the corridor is largely undeveloped, with a few scattered homes along local 

roadways. Noise-sensitive land uses are shown in aerial photographs that appear later in this section.

Noise Impact Thresholds

The FRA/FTA noise impact criteria are used to predict future noise impacts from transit operations. The 

FRA/FTA noise impact criteria are shown in Figure 4.13. The figure illustrates existing noise exposure and 

project-related noise exposure, and shows how FRA/FTA noise impact thresholds vary with existing noise 

levels. 

Figure 4.13: FRA/FTA Noise Impact Criteria

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06)

The FRA and FTA define three types of noise impacts as described below. The magnitude of impact affects 

whether noise mitigation is investigated or implemented. 

▪ Severe Impact: A significant percentage of people are highly annoyed by noise in this range. Noise 

mitigation would normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there is no practical method 

of mitigating the impact. 

▪ Moderate Impact: In this range, other project-specific factors are considered to determine the 

magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. Other factors include the predicted increase 

over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-43

outdoor-indoor sound insulation, and the cost-effectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable 

levels.

▪ No Impact: In this range, the introduction of the project will result in an insignificant increase in 

the number of people highly annoyed by the new noise.

Figure 4.14 is also taken from the FRA/FTA guidance document (FTA-VA-90-1003-06) and shows the 

limits of allowable increase in noise level based on the existing noise level. The increases shown are 

consistent with the combined existing and project related noise levels previously shown in Figure 4.12. 

Figure 4.14: Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by FTA/FRA Criteria

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06)

4.10.3 Vibration Descriptors

Vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions. However, human response to vibration is a function of 

the average motion over a longer (but still short) time, such as 1 second. For convenience, decibel notation 

is used to describe vibration relative to a reference quantity. The FRA/FTA has adopted the notation VdB 

(for vibration decibels), which is decibels relative to a reference quantity of 1 microinch per second (10−6

in/s).

Railway operations induce vibrations in the ground – ground-borne vibrations (GBV). In contrast to 

airborne noise, GBV is not an everyday experience for most people. The background vibration level in 

residential areas is usually 50 VdB or lower—well below the threshold of perception for humans, which is 

around 65 VdB. Figure 4.15 illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response 

to various levels of ground-borne vibration.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-44

Figure 4.15: Typical Vibration Levels and Responses

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06)

Ground-borne noise (GBN) is a rumble sound created by GBV, and is often masked by airborne-noise; 

therefore, GBN criteria are primarily applied to subway operations in which airborne noise is negligible.

4.10.4 Vibration Evaluation Criteria

Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses

The FRA and FTA differentiate vibration-sensitive land uses into three distinct categories which are similar, 

but not identical to the noise-sensitive land use categories presented in Table 4.18. These categories are 

one factor for setting the vibration impact threshold.

Table 4.18: Land Use Categories for Transit Vibration Impact Criteria

Land Use Category Description of Land Use Category

Category 1

High Vibration Sensitivity. Buildings where ambient vibration well below levels associated with 

human annoyance is essential for equipment or operations within the building. Typically 

includes vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals, and university 

research operations.

Category 2 Residential. Includes all residential land uses and any building where people sleep, such as 

hotels and hospitals.

Category 3

Institutional. Schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibrationsensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference. Includes certain office 

buildings, but not all buildings that have office space.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06)

Vibration-sensitive land uses are shown in aerial photographs that appear later in this section. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-45

Vibration Impact Thresholds

The FRA/FTA vibration impact criteria are used to predict future vibration impacts from transit operations. 

The thresholds are differentiated between vibration sensitive land uses and the frequency of vibration

events. 

▪ Frequent Events: More than 70 vibration events per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this 

category. 

▪ Occasional Events: Between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter 

trunk lines along main corridors fall into this category.

▪ Infrequent Events: Fewer than 30 vibration events per day. This category includes most commuter 

rail branch lines along corridors that are less frequently traveled.

The impact criteria for ground-borne vibration are related to levels causing human annoyance or interfering 

with the use of vibration-sensitive equipment. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude of a motion over 

a 1-second period is commonly used to predict human response to vibration. The basis for evaluating 

FRA/FTA vibration impact thresholds is the highest expected RMS vibration level for repeated vibration 

events from the same source. Ground-borne noise impacts are assessed based on criteria for human 

annoyance and activity interference. 

Table 4.19 shows the ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise impact criteria for a general 

assessment (the detailed vibration assessment utilizes different impact thresholds). 

Table 4.19: Ground-borne Vibration and Ground-borne Noise Impact Thresholds

Land Use Category

Ground-borne Vibration Impact Level

(VdB re 1 micro inch/second)

Ground-borne Noise Impact Level 

(dBA re 20 micropascals)

Frequent 

Events

Occasional 

Events

Infrequent 

Events

Frequent 

Events

Occasional 

Events

Infrequent 

Events

Category 1 

(highly sensitive, where 

vibration would interfere with 

operations)

65 a 65 a 65 a N/A b N/A b N/A b

Category 2 

(where overnight sleep 

occurs)

72 75 80 35 38 43

Category 3 

(institutional with primarily 

daytime use)

75 78 83 40 43 48

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06)

a

This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive 

manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels.

b Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground-borne noise.

The impact thresholds for vibration from rail transit systems are also used to assess vibration impact from

freight trains in shared right of way situations. However, for freight trains, the locomotive and rail car 

vibration are considered separately due to the significantly greater length, weight, and axle loads of a typical 

line-haul freight train. Locomotive vibration only lasts for a very short time; therefore, locomotive event 

frequency is the same as the train event frequency. However, the rail car vibration of a typical line-haul 

freight train lasts for several minutes. Therefore, each freight car is considered a separate event. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-46

The frequency of existing trains in the rail corridor will direct the assessment of potentially adverse 

vibration impacts:

▪ Infrequently-Used Rail Corridor: fewer than 5 trains per day. The project vibration levels are 

assessed using the general vibration criteria in Table 4.19.

▪ Moderately-Used Rail Corridor: 5 to 12 trains per day. If the existing vibration levels already 

exceed the impact criterion at a vibration-sensitive receptor and the project-related vibration levels 

are at least 5 VdB less than the existing train vibration, then the project will not cause additional

impact. Otherwise, the project vibration levels are assessed using the general vibration criteria in 

Table 4.19.

▪ Heavily-Used Rail Corridor: more than 12 trains per day. If the existing vibration levels already 

exceed the impact criterion at a vibration-sensitive receptor and the number of vibration events 

significantly increases (approximately double) due to the proposed Project, then the project will

cause an additional impact. Otherwise, if the project results in vibration levels that are 3 VdB or 

more higher than existing vibration, then the project will have additional impact.

▪ Moving Existing Tracks: shifting the location of existing railroad tracks or existing railroad traffic. 

If the track relocation and reconstruction results in lower vibration levels, then the project will 

benefit the receptor and will not cause an adverse impact. If the existing vibration levels already 

exceed the impact criterion at a vibration-sensitive receptor and the relocation results in vibration 

levels that are 3 VdB or more higher than existing vibration, then the project will cause additional 

impact. Otherwise, if vibration levels increase due to the track relocation, then the project vibration 

levels are assessed using the general vibration criteria in Table 4.19.

4.10.5 Assessment Approach

From a high-level overview, both the noise and the vibration assessments follow the same general steps: 

1. Establish the boundaries of the noise or vibration study areas. 

2. Identify the potentially noise- or vibration-sensitive receptors within the study area, based upon 

land use. 

3. Evaluate existing noise and vibration conditions of the receptors. 

4. Set impact thresholds based upon land uses and existing conditions. 

5. Estimate the noise and vibration levels from the project using the FRA/FTA “General Assessment” 

methods. 

6. Identify receptors anticipated to experience noise or vibration impacts; the receptors with the 

highest magnitude of impact may merit additional assessment. 

7. Evaluate existing and project-related noise and vibration levels using the FRA/FTA “Detailed 

Assessment” methods. 

8. Assess the magnitude of noise or vibration impacts and examine the effects of potential mitigation 

for reducing noise or vibration effects. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-47

Identifying Potentially Sensitive Receptors

Receptor identification for both noise-sensitive and vibration-sensitive land uses included a review of land 

use-related GIS data, review of digital aerial photographs, and review of other publicly available 

information and imagery. Receptors in the Study Area were identified and categorized for noise-sensitive 

land uses and vibration-sensitive land uses according to FRA/FTA categories. 

A unique aspect of the Study Area is the Stennis Space Center (SSC), a NASA facility centrally located 

within the Study Area. The SSC is surrounded by a 125,000-acre acoustical buffer zone which makes up 

the majority of the Study Area. The purpose of the buffer is to mitigate noise impacts associated with the 

testing of various rocket engines. Development or the construction of any standing structures is strictly 

prohibited within the buffer zone and is enforced by SSC. 

Since no receptors are located within the SSC acoustical buffer zone, this noise assessment applies only to 

the very northern-most portion of the Study Area and the southern-most portion of the Study Area where 

the track alignment extends and terminates beyond the limits of the buffer zone. 

The Project corridor extends approximately 1.2 miles north of the SSC acoustical buffer, towards and into 

the town of Nicholson, MS. Land use in this northern portion of the Project includes rural undeveloped 

(wooded) in the areas closest to the SSC, a highway, and scattered residences as the corridor moves closer 

to the town of Nicholson. The Project corridor also extends approximately 2 miles south of the SSC. 

Land use adjacent to this portion of the corridor is largely undeveloped, with a few scattered homes along 

local roadways. Noise-sensitive land uses are shown in aerial photographs that appear later in this 

section. 

General Assessment Methods

The noise assessment and the vibration assessment were conducted according to the General Assessment 

methods from FRA/FTA guidance. 38

Evaluating Existing Noise Conditions 

The existing noise conditions or baseline noise levels throughout the noise Study Area were estimated by 

evaluating the proximity to nearby active transportation routes and by the population density. This 

estimation method is detailed in the FRA/FTA guidance documents. In general, this method is designed to 

slightly underestimate the existing noise level, which in turn limits the impact threshold for project-related 

noise to a more restrictive level. Using FRA/FTA methods, existing noise levels in areas where residences 

exist were determined to be 45 dBA on an Ldn basis. 

Estimating Project-Related Noise Levels

The approach to estimating the Project-related noise levels follows the following procedure: 

▪ Calculate the noise emission levels of Project-related sources using equations from the FRA/FTA 

manual. 

▪ Calculate the propagation of noise from the Project-related sources to the impact thresholds. 

▪ Calculate the noise impact contours for locomotive horn noise using the FRA spreadsheet model. 

▪ Overlay moderate noise impact contours and severe noise impact contours upon digital aerial 

photographs using GIS technology. 

 

38https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf; accessed 9/25/17 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-48

Using this approach, the noise-sensitive receptors within the impact contours are projected to experience 

noise impacts from the proposed Project. 

Noise Modeling Assumptions

Certain characteristics of the Project have direct influence on the noise and vibration effects due to the 

Project. The critical assumptions include the following: 

▪ This assessment assumes 1 train per day (both inbound and outbound directions) with 65 freight 

rail cars and 2 diesel-electric locomotives. 

▪ Trains occur in equal probability during daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) or in nighttime 

hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). 

▪ Train speeds are around 39 mph. 

These characteristics are used as inputs for modeling the noise emission of each project-related noise source 

as a sound pressure level at 50 feet from the source.

Evaluating Existing Vibration Conditions

In most buildings and structures, much of the vibration is due to internal sources such as mechanical 

equipment, motorized appliances, and human activity such as footfall vibrations or door‐ closing impacts. 

As discussed in the section on Vibration Evaluation Criteria, the existing vibration environment can be 

neglected when considering a new train vibration source. 

Estimating Project-Related Vibration Levels

In overview, the vibration assessment consists of the following general steps: 

▪ Select the appropriate generalized vibration curve from FRA/FTA guidance. 

▪ Select appropriate adjustment factors for the structures anticipated to be on each land use including 

corrections for speed, track configuration, geological conditions, and building/foundation type. 

▪ Determine the distance to impact for each land use. 

▪ Overlay vibration impact contours upon digital aerial photographs using GIS technology. 

Vibration Modeling Assumptions

The generalized vibration curve for this vibration assessment is the “Locomotive Powered Passenger or 

Freight (50 mph)” curve. This curve is provided in FRA/FTA guidance, and the figure with the curve is 

reproduced in Figure 4.16.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-49

Figure 4.16: Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06)

4.11 Geological Resources

The state of Mississippi lies almost entirely within what is known as the Gulf Coastal Plain, which is 

contiguous to the east with the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Gulf Coastal Plain is subdivided along the 

Mississippi River into the East Gulf Coastal Plain and the West Gulf Coastal Plain. The Mississippi River 

Alluvial Plain is to the northwest. It consists of level and nearly level floodplains that extend to the foothills 

of the loess bluffs which form a crescent at the region's eastern edge.

4.11.1 Soils

The bedrock underlying Pearl River and Hancock Counties include Graham Ferry and Pascagoula 

Formations, Citronelle Formation, High Terrace deposits, Pamiloco Sand, alluvium, coastal deposits, and 

eolian sand (see Table 4.20 and Table 4.21). Coastal deposits include fine to medium quartz sand with 

shell fragments and accessory heavy minerals found along Gulf coastal beaches. In the Mississippi Sound, 

Little Lagoon, bays, lakes, streams are fine to medium quartz sand, silt, clay, peat, mud and ooze (Nicholas 

et al. 1983:2; Smith et al. 1981:2; USGS 2016).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-50

Table 4.20: Pearl River County Soils Summary

Soil Type Soil Description Acres in Study Area Percent of Study Area

Bd Bibb sandy loam 2.0 0.7

EaA Escambia fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 13.4 4.8

Pa Pits 5.7 2.0

PoA Poarch loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5.0 1.8

SaA Saucier loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.7 0.6

Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 27.7 9.9

Table 4.21: Hancock County Soils Summary

Soil Type Soil Description Acres in Study Area Percent of Study Area

At Atmore silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 51.2 17.8

Be Beauregard silt loam 13.3 4.6

EsA Escambia loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 27.1 9.4

EsB Escambia loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 7.0 2.4

EuB Eustis loamy fine sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.9 0.3

Gu 

Guyton silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, rarely 

flooded 27.0 9.4

HlA Harleston fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5.8 2.0

HlB Harleston fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 3.7 1.3

MaB Malbis fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 2.7 0.9

McB McLaurin fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 6.2 2.2

PoA Poarch fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.2 0.4

PoB Poarch fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 11.2 3.9

PoC Poarch fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes 0.3 0.1

SaA Saucier fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 8.0 2.8

SaB Saucier fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 3.4 1.2

ScB 

Saucier-Susquehanna complex, 2 to 5 percent 

slopes 5.1 1.8

St Smithton fine sandy loam 30.4 10.6

Su Smithton fine sandy loam, frequently flooded 20.9 7.3

SW Smithton association, frequently flooded 26.8 9.3

TR Trebloc association, frequently flooded 7.6 2.7

Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 259.7 90.4
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-51

There are 23 different soil series within the Study Area. These are Atmore silt loam (At), Beauregard silt 

loam (Be), Bibb sandy loam (Bd), Escambia fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (EaA), Escambia 

loam, zero to two percent slopes (EsA), Escambia loam, two to five percent slopes (EsB), Eustis loamy fine 

sand, two to five percent slopes (EuB), Guyton silt loam (Gu), Harleston fine sandy loam, zero to two 

percent slopes (HlA), Harleston fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (HlB), Malbis fine sandy loam, 

two to five percent slopes (MaB), McLaurin fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (McB), Pits (Pa), 

Poarch fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (PoA), Poarch fine sandy loam, two to five percent 

slopes (PoB), Poarch fine sandy loam, five to eight percent slopes (PoC), Saucier fine sandy loam, zero to 

two percent slopes (SaA), Saucier fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (SaB), Saucier-Susquehanna 

complex, two to five percent slopes (ScB), Smithton association, frequently flooded (SW), Smithton fine 

sandy loam (St), Smithton fine sandy loam, frequently flooded (Su), Trebloc association, frequently flooded 

(TR). A map of the soil types is presented in Figure 4.17. 

Soil data and descriptions for the Study Area were derived from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Web Soil Survey system.

Atmore silt loam (At) soil is made up of one major component (Atmore) and three minor components 

(Harleston, Poarch, and Escambia). Slopes are zero to two percent. This soil type is found on terraces on 

coastal plains. The parent material consists of silty alluvium over fine-loamy alluvium derived from 

sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer, plinthite, is 24 to 50 inches. The natural drainage class 

is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a 

depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded

or ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at four inches during March, April, October. Organic 

matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This soil does meet hydric criteria. There are no 

saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface.

Beauregard silt loam (Be) soil is made up of one major component (Beauregard), and four minor 

components (Atmore, Smithton, Escambia, and Harleston). Slopes are zero to one percent. This soil type is 

found on coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is 

greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is very high. 

Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded or ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 

27 inches during January, February, March, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon 

is about three percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Bibb sandy loam (Bd) soils are made up of one major component (Bibb) and one minor component 

(Dovoran). This component is on flood plains. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy alluvium 

deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly 

drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 

inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is 

not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at nine inches during January, February, March, April, 

and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This soil meets hydric 

criteria.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-52

Figure 4.17: Soils Map
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-53

The Escambia fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (EaA) soils is made up of one major component 

(Escambia) and three minor components (Atmore, Malbis, and Poarch). Slopes are zero to two percent. 

This soil type is on coastal plains, interfluves. The parent material consists of loamy fluviomarine deposits 

derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural 

drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately 

high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is 

low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 15 inches during 

January, February, March, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two 

percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil 

surface.

Escambia loam, zero to two percent slopes (EsA) soils are made up of one major component (Escambia) 

and five minor components (Guyton, Harleston, Saucier, Atmore, and Poarch). This soil type is on coastal 

plains. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is 

greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. 

Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation 

is at 24 inches during January, February, March, and December. Organic matter content in the surface 

horizon is about one percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Escambia loam, two to five percent slopes (EsB) soils consist of one major component (Escambia) and five 

minor components (Atmore, Harleston, Guyton, Poarch, and Saucier). Slopes are two to five percent. This 

soil type is on hillslopes. The parent material consists of Sandy Marine Deposits. Depth to a root restrictive 

layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat excessively drained. Water 

movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) 

is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water 

saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about one percent. 

This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Eustis loamy fine sand, two to five percent slopes (EuB) soils consist of one major component (Eustis) and 

three minor components (Escambia, Harleston, and Poarch). Slopes are two to five percent. This soil type 

is on hillslopes. The parent material consists of Sandy Marine Deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is 

greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat excessively drained. Water movement in the 

most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrinkswell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within 

a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Non-irrigated land 

capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria .

The Guyton silt loam (Gu) soils are made up of one major component (Guyton) and three minor components 

(Myatt, Abita, and Stough). The Guyton component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are zero 

to one percent. This soil type is on fluviomarine terraces, flood-plain steps. The parent material consists of 

late Plisetocene age terraces with loamy alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive 

layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is very high. 

Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is rarely flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water 

saturation is at nine inches during January, February, March, April, May, and December. Organic matter 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-54

content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This soil meets hydric criteria. There are no saline 

horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface.

Harleston fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (HlA) soils consist of one major component 

(Harleston) and three minor components (Bibb, Smithton, and Stough). Slopes are zero to two percent. This 

soil type is on stream terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium derived 

from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class 

is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available 

water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not 

flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 22 inches during January, February, 

March, April, May, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This 

soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface.

Harleston fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (HlB) soils consist of one major component 

(Harleston) and three minor components (Bibb, Smithton, and Stough). Slopes are two to five percent. This 

soil type is on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium derived 

from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class 

is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available 

water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is 

not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 22 inches during January, February, 

March, April, May, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This 

soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface.

Malbis fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (MaB) soils consist of one major component (Malbis) 

and four minor components (Saucier, Poarch, Benndale, and Escambia). Slopes are two to five percent. 

This soil type is on fluviomarine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of fine-loamy 

marine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. 

The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. 

Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This 

soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 39 inches during January, 

February, March, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This 

soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface .

The McLaurin fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (McB) is made up of one major component 

(McLaurin) and two minor components (Smithdale, and Benndale). Slopes are two to five percent. This 

soil type is on dissected fluviomarine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy 

fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell 

potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a 

depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This soil does not 

meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface.

Pits (Pa) are open excavations from which soil and commonly underlying material have been removed, 

exposing either rock or other material. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-55

Poarch fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (PoA) soils are made up of one major component 

(Poarch) and one minor component (Smithton). Slopes are zero to two percent. This soil type is on ridges. 

The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater 

than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell 

potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 45 inches 

during January, February, March, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 

one percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Poarch fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (PoB) soils consist of one major component (Poarch) 

and three minor components (Escambia, Malbis, and Harleston). Slopes are two to five percent. This soil 

type is on broad ridges on dissected uplands coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy 

fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential 

is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 45 inches during 

January, February, March, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two 

percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil 

surface.

Poarch fine sandy loam, five to eight percent slopes (PoC) soils consist of one major component (Poarch) 

and three minor components (Harleston, Smithton, and Escambia). Slopes are five to eight percent. This 

soil type is on hillslopes. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in 

the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) 

is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of 

water saturation is at 45 inches during January, February, March, and December. Organic matter content in 

the surface horizon is about one percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Poarch loam, zero to two percent slopes (PoA) soils consist of one major component (Poarch) and one 

minor component (Smithton). Slopes are zero to two percent. This soil type is on ridges. The parent material 

consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The 

natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. 

Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This 

soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 45 inches during January, 

February, March, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about one percent. This 

soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Saucier fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (SaA) soils consist of one major component (Saucier) 

and four minor components (Malbis, Poarch, Escambia, and Atmore). Slopes are zero to two percent. This 

soil type is on fluviomarine terraces, coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy over clayey 

fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer 

is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell 

potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 24 inches 

during January, February, and March. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about three percent. 

This soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-56

The Saucier fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (SaB) are made up of one major component 

(Saucier) and four minor components (Malbis, Poarch, Escambia, and Atmore). Slopes are two to five 

percent. This soil type is on fluviomarine terraces, coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy 

over clayey fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater 

than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is high. 

Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation 

is at 24 inches during January, February, and March. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 

three percent. This soil does not meet hydric There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil 

surface.

Saucier loam, zero to two percent slopes (SaA) is made up of one major component (Saucier) and one minor 

component (Smithton). Slopes are zero to two percent. This soil type is on coastal plains. The parent 

material consists of loamy over clayey marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer 

is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell 

potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 39 inches 

during January, February, and March. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. 

This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Saucier-Susquehanna complex, two to five percent slopes (ScB) soils consist of two major components 

(Saucier and Susquehanna). Saucier soils have a slope of two to five percent. This soil type is on 

fluviomarine terraces, coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy over clayey fluviomarine 

deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The 

natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential 

is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 24 inches during 

January, February, and March. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about three percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline 

horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface. Susquehanna soils have a slope of two to five percent. This 

component is on erosional uplands fluviomarine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of 

silty clay fluviomarine deposits over clayey fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth 

to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted 

depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is very high. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no 

zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 

two percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the 

soil surface.

Smithton association, frequently flooded (SW) soils consist of one major component (Smithton) and three 

minor components (Trebloc, Harleston, and Bibb). Slopes are zero to two percent. This soil type is on 

terraces. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell 

potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 

six inches during January, February, March, April, May, and December. Organic matter content in the 

surface horizon is about two percent. This soil meets hydric criteria.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-57

Smithton fine sandy loam (St) soils consist of one major component (Smithton) and four minor components 

(Atmore, Harleston, Guyton, and Plummer). Slopes are zero to two percent. This soil type is on terraces. 

The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. 

The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately 

high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is 

low. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at six inches 

during January, February, March, April, May, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon 

is about two percent. This soil meets hydric criteria.

Smithton fine sandy loam, frequently flooded (Su) soils consist of one major component (Smithton) and 

four minor components (Guyton, Harleston, Plummer, and Atmore). Slopes are zero to two percent. This 

soil type is on terraces. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is 

greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive 

layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrinkswell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation 

is at six inches during January, February, March, April, May, and December. Organic matter content in the 

surface horizon is about two percent. This soil meets hydric criteria.

Trebloc association, frequently flooded (TR) soils consist of one major component (Trebloc) and four minor 

components (Smithton, Harleston, Atmore, and Guyton). Slopes are zero to two percent. This soil type is 

on terraces. The parent material consists of silty alluvium deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater 

than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer 

is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell 

potential is moderate. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation 

is at nine inches during January, February, March, and April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon 

is about two percent. This soil meets hydric criteria.

4.12 Wetlands

4.12.1 Wetlands, Streams and Other Water Bodies

Wetlands are one of the most productive ecosystems in nature. They provide critical habitat for fish and 

other wildlife; serve as natural filtration and storage systems for water; provide protection against wind and 

tidal forces; control sediment erosion; and offer commercial and recreational benefits to humans. In recent 

years, activities associated with development have begun to threaten these thriving ecosystems. 

Consequently, wetlands have been granted protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 U.S.C. §§

1251-1387). 

Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which has regulatory authority over 

waters of the United States, as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water 

at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.”

39 Classification of a wetland 

requires the presence of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Under Section 404 

of the CWA, any activity that includes the placement of fill or dredged material within wetlands is regulated 

by the USACE and requires a permit prior to commencing fill activities. 

 

39 http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/rw_bro.pdf; accessed 9/25/17
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-58

A field delineation and proposed jurisdictional determination for waters of the U.S., including wetlands, 

was completed by CDM Smith and HDR during the spring (March) and summer (June) of 2016. The Study 

Area for wetlands is Hancock and Pearl River Counties; the Survey Corridor refers to the 200-foot wide 

buffer along the Build rail alignment that was surveyed in the field. Wetlands observed within the Survey 

Corridor included palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM), palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands (PSS) and 

palustrine forested wetlands (PFO), the dominant wetland type. Emergent wetlands were observed in 

transmission line and pipeline rights-of-way. Scrub-shrub and forested wetlands were observed in, near or 

adjacent to pine plantations or within floodplains adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams. A detailed 

description of each wetland habitat type and the results of the field delineation and proposed jurisdictional 

determination can be found in the Wetlands and Threatened and Endangered Species Report located in 

Appendix C.

Fill activities within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of streams and open water habitat are also 

regulated under Section 404 of the CWA and require a permit prior to commencing fill activities. Examples 

of fill activities within streams and open waters include any fill activities or alterations to channel 

morphology resulting from the construction of bridge crossings and the installation of culverts or pipes 

within stream beds. During the field delineation, streams, open water habitat and drainage features were 

also inspected on-site according to the Rapanos Guidance (2007)40 to determine USACE jurisdiction. The 

streams identified within the Survey Corridor include Mulatto Bayou, Lower Devils Swamp, Bayou 

Lacroix, Lion Branch, Wolf Branch, Turtleskin Creek, Indian Camp Branch, an unnamed tributary of Indian 

Camp Branch, and Second Alligator Branch. Additionally, one open water pond was identified during the 

field delineation. The hydrology and channel morphology of most of these waters have been heavily altered 

through silviculture practices and development. Wetlands, streams and open water habitat delineated within 

the Study Area are displayed in Figure 4.18.

The Survey Corridor also contains many ditches and drainage features that are considered unlikely to be 

waters of the U.S. (i.e., non-jurisdictional), based on current regulations,

41 due to their likely excavation in 

uplands for surrounding development and/or lack of surface hydrologic connection to a water of the U.S.

Although a defined surface hydrologic connection to the Pearl River is not clearly apparent in all areas, it 

is assumed that all wetlands, streams and open water habitat in the Study Area would be considered 

jurisdictional due to their location within the floodplain. These wetlands are considered potentially 

jurisdictional (i.e., waters of the U.S.) until concurrence is given by a representative of the USACE 

Regulatory Branch through the jurisdictional determination process. Fill impacts to waters, including 

wetlands, identified as jurisdictional, would likely require a Section 404 USACE permit. 

 

40 Guidance based on “Rapanos” Supreme Court Case 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006)

41 USACE & EPA. 2007. Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. 

United States Accessed June 6, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/rapanosguidance6507.pdf and USACE & 

EPA. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States 

Accessed June 6, 2017. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-

02/documents/cwa_jurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-59

Figure 4.18: Wetlands Map
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-60

4.12.2 Mitigation Banks 

A wetland mitigation bank is an aquatic resource (wetlands and/or streams), including some surrounding 

property, that has been set aside for the protection of the resource. A boundary of the property is established 

with a legal instrument and includes deed restrictions placed upon the property. A formal agreement is 

established with regulatory agencies on the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of the resource for 

perpetuity. The agreement also establishes a number of credits available once the restoration is complete. 

These credits can then be purchased by developers and infrastructure projects as mitigation for their impacts 

on similar types of resources.

The Survey Corridor crossed through one mitigation bank, Texas Flat Mitigation Bank, which is a 1,985-

acre commercial wetland mitigation bank that was approved by USACE Mobile District in 2013. The bank 

is located in the center of the Study Area, to the southeast of SSC; it comprises over 6 miles of streams and 

over 1,700 acres of wet pine flats and bottomland hardwood forests with both stream and wetland credits 

available for purchase.

4.13 Floodplains

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible, the long- and 

short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid 

direct and indirect (induced) development in floodplains wherever there is a practicable alternative. The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines floodplains,42 regulatory floodways43 and flood 

zones as follows:

▪ A floodplain is any land area susceptible to being inundated by floodwaters from any source. 

▪ A regulatory floodway means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land 

areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing 

the water surface elevation more than a designated height. 

▪ A flood zone is a geographical area shown on a Flood Hazard Boundary Map or a Flood Insurance 

Rate Map that reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area.

Floodplains, floodways and flood zones were evaluated by reviewing Geographic Information System 

(GIS) data from the Flood Map Service Center,44 maintained by FEMA, and other existing documentation, 

including aerial photography and water related regulations. 

FEMA issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps as a part of the National Flood Insurance Program, which 

designate the Special Flood Hazard Area in land areas covered by the floodwaters of the 1 percent annual 

chance flood, also referred to as the 100-year floodplain. The Study Area contains areas within the 

designated 100-year floodplain. 

Flood zones range from lower risk (X zones) to higher risk (A and AE zones). Areas classified as Zone A 

are subject to the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year floodplain) where no Base Flood Elevations 

 

42 https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/definitions#F, accessed on August 23, 2016.

43 http://www.fema.gov/floodway, accessed on August 23, 2016.

44 https://msc.fema.gov/portal, accessed on September 28, 2017
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-61

(BFEs) have been established by FEMA.45 Areas classified as Zone AE are subject to the 1 percent annual 

chance flood where BFEs have been established. Areas classified as Zone X are generally subject to the 0.2 

percent annual chance flood (500-year floodplain). 

Figure 4.19 displays zones within the Study Area with 1 percent and 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding 

based on GIS data downloaded from FEMA’s Flood Map Service Center.46 No regulatory floodways are 

located in the Study Area. Additional information on the FEMA National Flood Hazard Panels, effective 

dates and flood zones, and more detailed floodplain maps of the Study Area are included in Appendix C

(Wetlands and Threatened and Endangered Species Report). 

4.14 Water Resources

Surface Water

The Study Area’s surface water is comprised of many bayous and unnamed tributaries within the Pearl 

River Basin and the Lower Pearl River Watershed. The Pearl River Basin covers over 8,700 square miles 

and drains all or parts of 24 counties in Mississippi and three parishes in Louisiana. Over 16,000 miles of 

streams and rivers flow through the basin which eventually drains into the Gulf of Mexico.47 Average 

annual rainfall within Hancock and Pearl River Counties is approximately 64 inches, contributing to the 

overall water supply of the watershed.48

The natural hydrology of the Study Area has been heavily altered due to silviculture activities including 

ditching, creating rows for planting, and logging within the pine plantations that account for most of the 

Survey Corridor. The Survey Corridor refers to the 200-foot wide buffer along the identified rail alignment 

that was surveyed in the field. The saturated and flooded conditions observed in the Survey Corridor during 

field surveys can be attributed to riverine influences of the Pearl River through its bayous and tributaries, a 

high-water table, high average annual rainfall and geographic location within the 100-year floodplain.

Water Quality

Under CWA Section 303(d), every two years the MDEQ develops, and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) reviews and approves, a list of Mississippi water bodies that do not meet water quality 

standards for designated uses. Examples of designated uses under the CWA include recreation, fish 

consumption, aquatic life support, and drinking water supply. Waters that do not meet water quality 

standards for one or more designated uses are “impaired” waters for which Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) standards are set to improve water quality. A TMDL establishes the maximum amount of a 

pollutant allowed in a waterbody and serves as a planning tool for restoring water quality.

 

45 BFEs are the computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood. BFEs are shown on Flood Insurance 

Rate Maps (FIRMs) and on the flood profiles. The BFE is the regulatory requirement for the elevation or floodproofing of structures. The 

relationship between the BFE and a structure's elevation determines the flood insurance premium.

46 http://fema.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cbe088e7c8704464aa0fc34eb99e7f30, accessed on August 31, 2016

47 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2007. Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality in the Pearl River Basin. January 2007.

48 www.ncdc.noaa.gov, accessed on July 10, 2016
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-62

Figure 4.19: Floodplain Map
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-63

Within the Study Area, three water bodies are listed in the final 2014 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water 

Bodies.

49 The list includes the type of pollutant causing the impairment, e.g., biological impairment, pH, 

organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, or total phosphorus. Turtle Skin Creek, Dead 

Tiger Creek and Catahoula Creek are listed for biological impairment (Table 4.22). Biological impairment 

represents degraded biological conditions for which the stressors, or causes, are unknown. These same three 

water bodies are also listed in the draft 2016 303(d) List50. TMDLs have not been set for these streams, and 

the “TMDL Priority” is listed as “Low” in the draft 2016 303(d) report. Due to the nature of the monitoring 

and listings for 2014, the sources of the impairment for Turtle Skin Creek, Dead Tiger Creek and Catahoula 

Creek are not known, because they are generally non-point source issues that are difficult to identify without 

specific analysis.

Table 4.22: Impaired Water Bodies within the Study Area

Basin Water Body 

Name

Water 

Body ID County Impaired Use Pollutant Location First Listed

Pearl 

River

Turtle Skin 

Creek 520511 Hancock

Fish & Wildlife 

(Aquatic Life 

Use Support)

Biological 

Impairment

Near Santa Rosa 

from headwaters to 

confluence with 

Mikes River

2002

Coastal 

Streams

Dead Tiger 

Creek 203711 Hancock

Fish & Wildlife 

(Aquatic Life 

Use Support)

Biological 

Impairment

Near Kiln from 

headwaters to 

confluence with 

Catahoula Creek

2006

Coastal 

Streams

Catahoula 

Creek 203311 Hancock

Fish & Wildlife 

(Aquatic Life

Use Support)

Biological 

Impairment

Near Santa Rosa 

from headwaters to 

confluence with 

Jourdan River

2012

Source: Extracted from Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Division of the Office of Pollution Control, Mississippi 

2014 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. Final July 24, 2014 and Mississippi 2016 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. Draft 

February 8, 2016.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Act (Act) was created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-

542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational 

values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Act provides 

protection over those rivers and adjacent environments that have been designated as Wild and Scenic. 

The only river in Mississippi that has been designated as a National Wild and Scenic River is a 21-mile 

segment of Black Creek.

51 Black Creek is located outside of the Study Area, near Wiggins, Mississippi. 

Mississippi Statewide Scenic Stream Stewardship Program52

The Mississippi Statewide Scenic Stream Stewardship Program (Mississippi Code § 51-4-23 (2013)) is a 

non-regulatory program organized by the state of Mississippi that encourages voluntary conservation of 

certain rivers and streams located within the state. The Mississippi Statewide Scenic Stream Stewardship 

Program is administered by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP). The 

MDWFP inventories and evaluates Mississippi streams and identifies the streams or stream segments which 

 

49 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Division of the Office of Pollution Control. 2014. Mississippi 2014 Section 

303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. Final July 24, 2014. 

50 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Division of the Office of Pollution Control. 2016. Mississippi 2016 Section 

303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. Draft February 8, 2016.

51 https://www.rivers.gov/mississippi.php, accessed on September 2, 2016

52 https://www.mdwfp.com/fishing-boating/public-waters/scenic-streams-program.aspx, accessed on September 2, 2016.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-64

possess unique or outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, botanical, fish, wildlife, historic or cultural 

values based on the criteria established under the Mississippi Statewide Scenic Stream Stewardship 

Program. 

Mississippi has 11 stream/river segments designated as scenic streams that are included in the Mississippi 

State Scenic Streams Stewardship Program; however, the Wolf River is the only designated State Scenic 

Stream listed in Hancock and Pearl River Counties. Wolf River does not cross the Study Area. 

Ground Water

The Study Area lies within the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer System.53 It consists of unconsolidated to poorly 

consolidated beds of sand, silt and clay and extends and thickens coastward. The Coastal Lowlands Aquifer 

System provides water for agricultural, public, domestic, commercial and industrial uses. Public drinking 

water in Hancock County is acquired from water wells connected to the Graham Ferry and Pascagoula 

aquifers, which are part of the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer System.54

4.15 Habitat and Wildlife

4.15.1 Terrain

Terrain is described as the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the surface of the land. Existing terrain 

was assessed within the Survey Corridor, which refers to the 200-foot wide buffer along the identified rail 

alignment that was surveyed in the field. The terrain within the Survey Corridor is flat with minor 

undulations at drainage features and streams in the rural agricultural areas and nearby 

floodplains/floodways. The elevations for the Survey Corridor range from a high point of approximately 

25 feet above sea level to a low point of approximately 8 feet above sea level. 

4.15.2 Vegetation

The information contained in this section is based on field investigations conducted in March and June 2016 

of the 200-foot Survey Corridor and text taken from the Wetlands and Threatened and Endangered 

Species Report located in Appendix C. The Survey Corridor contains six broadly determined habitat types 

(Table 4.23). These are broadly determined from the dominant vegetation present and may contain some 

overlap of species.

Table 4.23: Dominant Vegetation Types

Dominant Vegetation Types

Wetland/Upland 

Classification Cowardin1 Wetland Classification

Pine Plantation Upland N/A

Early Succession Pine Plantation Upland N/A

Pine Savannah/Pine Flatwoods Wetland Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PFO)

Bottomland Hardwoods Wetland Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PFO)

Scrub-Shrub Wetland Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS) 

Emergent Wetland Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (PEM)

1

The Cowardin wetland classification is a comprehensive classification system of wetlands and deepwater habitats that was 

developed for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1979.

 

53 http://cida.usgs.gov/ngwmn/index.jsp, accessed on August 30, 2016

54 Phone conversation with Bay St. Louis Public Works Department on August 26, 2016.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-65

Pine Plantation – Upland

Upland pine plantations contain a variety of planted pine species but the majority observed during field 

investigations were loblolly and slash pine. Sandy, slightly higher elevations towards the town of Nicholson 

contained longleaf pine. Most of these pine stands contain a dominant understory species, depending on 

how often the pine stands have been thinned, and little to no herbaceous ground cover or understory. Where 

a midstory was present, the dominant species were sweet gum and red maple. In the open thinned pine 

stands, the shrub layer consisted of wax myrtle, redbay, fetterbush, and Vaccinium. If present, the 

herbaceous layer was composed primarily of dwarf palmetto, longleaf woodoats, plumegrass, giant cane, 

Virginia chain fern, cinnamon fern, and netted chain fern. In addition, these areas appeared to be well sloped 

and well drained with little to no oxidizing in the sampled soils. 

Early Succession Pine Plantation – Upland

Early successional pine plantation habitat originates from the harvest and replanting of a mature upland 

pine plantation community that previously existed in the area. Soils and hydrology are characteristic of an 

upland pine plantation, including well drained soils with no indication of saturation or presence of surface 

water. Regrowth in early successional habitats include a sapling and scrub/shrub overstory interspersed 

with a grass and forb understory. Dominant species observed include loblolly pine saplings and gallberry, 

interspersed with broomsedge bluestem.

Pine Savannah/Pine Flatwoods – Wetland

This wetland habitat is the most common habitat type found throughout the Survey Corridor. Many of these 

pine savannah/pine flatwoods areas are maintained for silviculture and are constantly changing. This habitat 

is essentially flat or rolling topography with a canopy of pines along with a well-developed subcanopy of 

several tall shrub or understory species. The soils are usually sandy with a high-water table. Similar to the 

upland pine plantations, the pine flatwoods contain a variety of planted pine species with the majority being 

loblolly and slash pine. Longleaf pine may be present but has mostly been removed in favor of the faster 

growing species such as loblolly and slash pine.

In contrast to the pine plantation, a clear herbaceous understory is present, and where not maintained, it is 

dominated by one or two species throughout. These were generally Swamp titi and fetterbush. Other species 

include inkberry, wax myrtle, sweetbay, and redbay. The groundcover contains a variety of panic grasses, 

blazing-stars, St. John’s worts, and broom sedges. Some of the less-common, but ecologically important 

herbs, included pitcher plants, sundews, and club mosses.

Bottomland Hardwoods – Wetland

Bottomland hardwood forests are typically associated with floodplains of rivers and streams. These forests 

are characterized and maintained by a natural hydrologic regime of alternating wet and dry periods 

generally following seasonal flooding events. These habitats can vary widely in species and water level 

fluctuations depending on proximity to the associated water source and rainfall events throughout the year.

The species observed in the bottomland/hardwood communities of the Survey Corridor were swamp tupelo, 

bald cypress, red maple, sweetgum, boxelder, cherrybark oak and American sycamore. During parts of the 

year, particularly in wetter months, there may be little to no herbaceous vegetation present due to standing 

water throughout these flooded forests. A subcanopy of early successional species, plus many tall shrubs 

were present. These included Chinese privet, arrowwood viburnum, wax myrtle, and black willow. Vines 

were also very common in these communities, including greenbrier, poison ivy, and muscadine grape.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-66

Scrub Shrub – Wetland

Scrub-shrub wetlands are usually a low, flat wetland community dominated by woody vegetation less than 

20 feet tall. Soils are very poorly drained. Surface water is present for extended periods, sometimes drying 

during late summer or during drought. Species include true shrubs, young trees, and shrubs with dominant 

shrub species being wax myrtle, swamp titi, fetterbush, and gallberry. Redbay and stunted bald cypress 

were also observed in several areas.

Emergent – Wetland

Emergent wetlands, also referred to as freshwater marshes, are common in maintained utility rights of way 

throughout the study corridor. These areas were often found alongside or adjacent to a forested wetland 

habitat type. This community is dominated by grasses and sedges as well as other herbs, including panic 

grasses, beak sedges, sedges, black needlerush, cattails, and water pennyworts. These areas were mostly 

found near gas pipelines or rights of way for overhead transmission lines where woody vegetation is 

removed to maintain the herbaceous community. Many of these areas were extremely wet with water as 

high as 3 to 4 feet deep.

4.15.3 Faunal and Floral Communities

As described in the previous section, the Survey Corridor contains a combination of uplands (pine 

plantations) and wetlands (pine savannah/pine flatwoods, bottomland hardwoods, scrub-shrub and 

emergent wetlands). Fauna typically found in southern Mississippi pine plantations and wetlands are 

migratory birds, squirrels, raccoons, wild turkey, turtles, snakes, ducks, fish, feral hogs, and white tail deer. 

Flora primarily consists of loblolly and slash pine, deciduous hardwoods such as various species of oak, 

maple, and ash, bottomland species such as bald cypress, and scrub-shrub areas of baccharis and young 

trees as mentioned above with the addition of bays and hollies. Most of the Survey Corridor is farmed pine 

plantations that vary in their stage of maturity. These areas provide nesting habitat for birds of the area. 

Although hardwood areas of the Survey Corridor contain various oaks, it is not a dominant species of the 

habitat, and food sources (acorns) are limited for wildlife such as squirrels and white-tail deer. These 

bottomland areas also lack other hardwood species that typically provide food such as persimmon. These 

wildlife species may inhabit the Survey Corridor and forage on other sources of nutrients such as plants, 

insects and twigs. Except for the scrub-shrub areas of the Survey Corridor, the habitat lacks ideal “bedding” 

areas for white-tail deer. However, surveyed wetland areas contained plants that provide an ideal food 

source for birds, turtles, frogs, and snakes. Pitcher plant bogs also provide distinct habitat for reptiles and 

amphibians in the area. 

4.15.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Plants and animals with federal and state classifications of Threatened or Endangered (T&E) species are 

protected under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. §

1539) and Mississippi state law (Mississippi Code 49-5-109).

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) prior to any federal action regarding any actions that may adversely affect listed species or their 

habitat within the affected environment (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. § 1536). In addition, candidate 

species have sufficient information to warrant listing, but statutory protection is precluded by higher listing 

priorities. Although not afforded statutory protection, given the typically long schedules of many proposed 

projects, a project lead agency should initiate an informal conference with the USFWS if a candidate or 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-67

proposed species may be affected. Mississippi state-listed species are managed through the Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, & Parks (MDWFP).

The affected environment for T&E species are described in the following sections. A desktop survey was 

conducted for the Study Area, which for T&E includes the entirety of Hancock and Pearl River Counties. 

For further evaluation of potential T&E habitat, a 200-foot corridor that buffers the preferred project (rail) 

alignment was surveyed in the field. For additional information on the field surveys, refer to the Wetlands 

and Threatened and Endangered Species Report (Appendix C).

The USFWS’s Information Planning and Conservation (IPaC) online database and the Mississippi Natural 

Heritage Program (MNHP) online database, which contain publicly available information regarding federal 

and state protected species, were queried in June 2016 for the Study Area. The database queries identified 

30 federally and/or state-listed plant and animal species with the potential to occur within Hancock and 

Pearl River Counties.

Based upon a review of the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper, no record of critical habitat has been 

designated for any of the protected species within the Study Area. As defined in the ESA, critical habitat is 

any habitat given special protection for the benefit of the survival of a listed species.

Based on literature review and the report entitled Endangered Species of Mississippi,

55 no documented 

occurrences, except for the rainbow snake, of any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species 

or candidate species have been recorded within the Survey Corridor. 

Potential of Listed T&E Species to Occur in the Survey Corridor

For each of the 30 federal and state T&E plant and animal species listed within Hancock and Pearl River 

Counties, species habitat requirements, literature reviews, field observations, aerial photographs, and street 

level views (Google Maps) were reviewed to determine if potential suitable habitat exists within the Study 

Area. 

No protected species were observed during field reconnaissance. Habitats observations from the field 

survey were used to evaluate whether the 30-listed species would have the potential to occur in the Survey 

Corridor.

Table 4.24 provides a summary of the 30 federal and state species and summarizes the findings for each, 

including brief habitat descriptions; whether suitable habitat exists within the Survey Corridor (Yes/No); 

whether there are known occurrences (Yes/No); whether critical habitat exists (Yes/No); and the potential 

for occurrence (High/Low/Not Likely to Occur). 

 

55 Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2014. Endangered Species of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-68

Table 4.24: Evaluation of T&E Species in the Survey Corridor

Common 

Name/Scientific 

Name

Federal 

Listing 

Status1

State 

Listing 

Status1

Habitat Description2

Suitable 

Habitat 

(Yes/No)3

Known 

Occurrences 

(Yes/No)4

Critical 

Habitat 

(Yes/No)5

Potential 

to Occur6

Alabama 

(=inflated) 

heelsplitter

Potamilus inflatus

T E

Inhabits slow- to moderateflowing rivers with stable sand, 

mud and/or silt bottoms. In 

Mississippi, the heelsplitter still 

occurs in part of the Tombigbee 

River drainage. 

Yes No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Crystal darter

Crystallari

a asprella

_ E

In Mississippi, occurs in Bayou 

Pierre, Homochitto, Pearl River 

and Tombigbee watersheds; 

inhabits large creeks and rivers 

with clean sand and gravel 

substrates often near tributary 

confluences

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Ironcolor shiner

Notropis 

chalybaeus

_ E

In Mississippi, it historically 

occurred along the coastal area 

of the state in coastal river 

drainages, Pascagoula drainage 

and Pearl River systems. 

Lowland streams with abundant 

aquatic vegetation, open swamp 

habitat, and/or areas draining 

densely canopied woodlands.

Yes No No Low

Pearl darter

Percina aurora C E

It is assumed extirpated from 

Pearl River drainage, now only 

occurring in the Pascagoula 

River drainage and its 

freshwater tributaries. Prefers 

slow flowing waters along the 

downstream edge sandbar point 

bars, pools and/or deep runs 

over bedrock substrate.

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Frecklebelly 

madtom

Noturus munitus

_ E

In Mississippi, it occurs in major 

tributaries of the Tombigbee 

River and lower portions of the 

Pearl River drainage. Preferred 

habitat includes stable gravel or 

rubble riffles and rapids in main 

river channels and large 

tributaries

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Atlantic sturgeon 

(Gulf 

subspecies)

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus

desotoi

T E

In Mississippi, previously 

collected in the Pearl River 

upstream of Madison County 

and in the Bogue Chitto River 

upstream to Pike County; found 

in all saltwater habitats, except 

during spawning season when 

found in major rivers that empty 

into the Gulf of Mexico, 

including the Mississippi River 

and Pearl River.

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-69

Common 

Name/Scientific 

Name

Federal 

Listing 

Status1

State 

Listing 

Status1

Habitat Description2

Suitable 

Habitat 

(Yes/No)3

Known 

Occurrences 

(Yes/No)4

Critical 

Habitat 

(Yes/No)5

Potential 

to Occur6

Smalltooth 

sawfish

Pristis pectinata

E _

Shallow waters very close to 

shore over muddy and sandy 

bottoms. They are often found 

in sheltered bays, on shallow 

banks, and in estuaries or river 

mouths. They prefer warmer 

water temperature and are 

known to ascend inland in river 

systems

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Louisiana 

quillwort

Isoetes 

louisianensis

E _

Slow-moving freshwater 

streams Yes No No Low

Eastern indigo

Snake

Drymarchon 

couperi

T E

In the Southeast, indigo snakes 

are restricted to areas of xeric 

pine-oak sandhills, which are 

usually inhabited by gopher 

tortoises. These snakes use 

gopher tortoise burrows as 

shelter during the winter and 

during the warmer months for 

nesting and refuge from intense 

summer heat.

Yes No No Low

Southern 

hognose snake

Heterodon simus

_ E

Habitat includes open or 

sparsely wooded dry areas with 

deep sandy or sandy-loam soils.

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Black pine snake

Pituophis 

melanoleucus 

lodingi

T E

14 counties in southern 

Mississippi; inhabits mature 

longleaf pine forests with sandy 

soil, an open canopy, 

moderately fire suppressed 

midstory, and a thick grassy 

understory

Yes No No Low

Rainbow snake

Farancia 

erytrogramma

_ E

Inhabits rivers, streams, springs, 

ponds and lakes associated 

with soils which are sandy 

enough to allow it to burrow

Yes No No Low

Gopher tortoise

Gopherus 

polyphemus

T E

Dry, sandy uplands, such as 

oak-sandhills, scrub, pine 

flatwoods and coastal dunes of 

the southeastern United States. 

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Ringed map 

turtle

Graptemys 

oculifera

T E

Native to the Pearl River 

watershed of Mississippi and 

Louisiana; requires structure on 

which it can safely bask 

protected from predation and 

suitable nesting habitat (large, 

high sandbars adjacent to a 

river).

No No No Low

Kemp’s ridley 

sea turtle

Lepidochelys 

kempii

E E

Warm bays and coastal waters; 

tidal rivers; estuaries; sea grass 

beds; sandy coastal beaches 

are used for nesting

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Leatherback sea 

turtle

Dermochelys 

coriacea

E E

Open ocean; deeper waters of 

the Gulf and coastal bays; 

coastal beaches and barrier 

islands suitable for nesting

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-70

Common 

Name/Scientific 

Name

Federal 

Listing 

Status1

State 

Listing 

Status1

Habitat Description2

Suitable 

Habitat 

(Yes/No)3

Known 

Occurrences 

(Yes/No)4

Critical 

Habitat 

(Yes/No)5

Potential 

to Occur6

Loggerhead sea 

turtle

Caretta caretta

T E

Marine open waters, inshore 

areas such as bays lagoons, 

salt marshes, creeks, ship 

channels, and mouths of large 

rivers; sandy coastal beaches 

are used for nesting

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Hawksbill sea 

turtle

Eretmochelys 

imbricate

E E

Warm bays and shallow 

portions of oceans; seagrass 

beds; estuaries; mainland 

beaches and islands used for 

nesting

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus DL E

Known to migrate through 

inland Mississippi and along the 

Gulf Coast, occasionally 

wintering on the coast. Also 

occurs in a wide variety of 

habitats including Arctic Tundra, 

dense forested areas and 

coastal cliffs.

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Piping plover

Charadrius 

melodus

E

7T8 E

Wintering habitat - open, 

sparsely vegetated coastal 

beaches and sandy mud flats; in 

Louisiana, habitat includes 

beaches and mudflats of barrier 

islands in southeastern coastal 

Parishes 

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Southeastern 

snowy plover

Charadrius 

nivosus

_ E

In Mississippi, nests on the 

barrier islands and occasionally 

on mainland beaches in 

Harrison County. Any plovers 

breeding in Mississippi are 

assumed to be year-round 

residents. Inhabits expanses of 

flat, dry sand along seacoast 

beaches and forages at the 

edge of the water or on sand 

flats at tidal creeks

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Red knot

Calidris canutus 

rufa

T _

Wintering habitat – intertidal 

marine habitats, especially near 

coastal inlets, estuaries, and 

bays, or along resting 

formations 

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

Picoides borealis

E E Older, mature pine forest Yes No No Low

Wood stork

Mycteria 

americana

T E

In Mississippi, found along 

western edge of state in 

counties bordering the 

Mississippi River and some 

along the eastern edge of the 

state. Freshwater and estuarine 

wetlands, primarily nesting in 

cypress or mangrove swamps 

using sloughs or swamps for 

foraging habitat.

Yes No No Low
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-71

Common 

Name/Scientific 

Name

Federal 

Listing 

Status1

State 

Listing 

Status1

Habitat Description2

Suitable 

Habitat 

(Yes/No)3

Known 

Occurrences 

(Yes/No)4

Critical 

Habitat 

(Yes/No)5

Potential 

to Occur6

Brown pelican 

Pelecanus 

occidentalis

DL E

The brown pelican has been in 

decline along the Gulf Coast 

since the 1960s and is now 

protected. In Mississippi, they 

are an uncommon but regular 

visitor. They nest and forage 

from barrier islands as far as 12 

miles from the coastline.

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Black bear

Ursus 

americanus

DL E

In Mississippi, found in counties 

along the Mississippi River, 

lower Pearl River and 

Pascagoula watersheds

Yes No No Low

Florida panther

Puma concolor 

coryi

E E

Presumed extirpated from 

Mississippi; inhabits mixed 

swamp forests and hardwood 

hammocks, less frequently 

occurring in upland pine forests 

and pine savannahs.

Yes No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Fin or finback 

whale

Balaenoptera 

physalus

E __ Open Ocean No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

Humpback whale 

Megaptera 

novaeangliae

E _ Open Ocean No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

West Indian 

manatee

Trichechus 

manatus

E E

In Mississippi, observed at a 

number of sites inshore along 

the Mississippi coast. Inhabits 

warm, marine open water, bays, 

and rivers where submerged 

aquatic and floating vegetation 

is found for foraging

No No No Not Likely 

to Occur

1 E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate species; DL = Delisted; - = not listed

2 All species descriptions, preferred habitat, and location of known occurrences are summarized from the IPaC database (Federal species) and 

from a report entitled Endangered Species of Mississippi56.

3

Suitable habitat determined based on field observations.

4 Known occurrences based on desktop literature review for the study area.

5 Critical habitat based on USFWS IPaC database.

6 Potential to Occur: This classifies the likelihood of potential to occur within the Survey Corridor. Not likely to occur = the Survey Corridor may 

contain suitable habitat; however, the current known range and distribution data available does not include the Survey Corridor; Low = the 

Survey Corridor is within the breeding and/or winter range of the species, suitable habitat is present, but there are no documented occurrences 

of the species within the Survey Corridor; High = suitable habitat is present and occurrence in the Survey Corridor is documented by MNHP or 

other credible sources

7 Only the population within the Great Lakes Watershed

8 All populations except the Great Lakes Watershed

 

56 Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2014. Endangered Species of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-72

An initial T&E species field survey was conducted in March 2016. In the days prior to the first field survey, 

Louisiana and parts of Southwest Mississippi experienced record rainfall and flooding.57 The Survey 

Corridor is situated within the Pearl River Basin. Due to flooding, the Pearl River experienced its second 

highest crest in history of 20.35 feet on March 14, 2016, the day fieldwork began.58 Flood stage for the 

Pearl River is 14 feet.59 The heavy rainfall and flood stage of the Pearl River caused flooding throughout 

the extent of the survey area and conditions may have been wetter than normal. During a second field survey 

for the southern portion of the preferred rail alignment in June 2016 under normal conditions, portions of 

the Survey Corridor were still heavily saturated or ponded with standing water varying between 3 to 12 

inches. 

4.16 Hazardous Materials

Hazardous materials are generally defined as any material that has or will have, alone or when combined 

with other materials, a harmful effect on humans or the natural environment. They may be characterized as 

reactive, toxic, infectious, flammable, explosive, corrosive, or radioactive and can be in the form of a solid, 

sludge, liquid, or gas. Hazardous materials and waste sites are regulated primarily by the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 USC § 6901),

60 as amended; the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)(42 USC § 1906);

61 and the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)(42 USC § 9601).

62

4.16.1 Hazardous Waste

Numerous federal, state, local, and tribal environmental regulatory databases were utilized to identify 

hazardous materials sites that could potentially impact the proposed Project. An environmental data 

company, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) was contracted to search all available environmental 

databases within a quarter-mile radius from the proposed Project. The results of this search may be found 

in Appendix F, EDR DataMap Environmental Atlas (EDR Report).

63 A complete listing of all databases 

searched may be found in the Executive Summary of the EDR Report.

For the purposes of this Draft EIS, only regulatory listings noted to be within the quarter-mile search radius 

and of potential concern to the proposed Project were analyzed and are listed below.

MS LUST

The Mississippi Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database contains an inventory of reported 

leaking underground storage tank incidents maintained by MDEQ (http://www.deq.state.mi.us/sidweb/LUST_Search.aspx). One MS LUST listing was noted within the search radius as described below.

Nicholson Quick Stop is a fueling station located on U.S. Highway 11 near Second Avenue in Nicholson, 

Mississippi. This facility is approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed Project and has had a total of four 

LUST incidents:

 

57 http://w2.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=jan, accessed 7/5/2016

58 http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=lix&gage=perl1, accessed 7/10/2016

59 http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=lix&gage=perl1, accessed 7/10/2016

60 https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act, accessed 9/25/17.

61 https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview, accessed 9/25/17.

62 https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-amendments-and-reauthorization-act-sara, access 9/25/17.

63 Environmental Data Resources (EDR) DataMap Environmental Atlas. Port Bienville Railroad, Inquiry Number 4689756.5s; includes EDR 

Governmental Database Search. August 03, 2016.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-73

▪ one incident reported in 1992 and closed with No Further Action Required in 1994;

▪ one incident reported in 1996 and closed with No Further Action Required in 1997;

▪ one incident reported in 2008 and closed with No Further Action Required in 2009; and

▪ one incident reported in 2013 which remains open.

Unexploded Ordnance

A listing of unexploded ordnance (UXO) site locations was provided by EDR. One UXO listing was noted 

within the search radius as described below.

The Hancock County Bombing and Gunnery Range was used by the Army, Navy, and Air Force to train 

aerial bombing crews from 1942 until 1963 and consisted of approximately 30,622 acres within Hancock 

County. Within the range were three target sectors: two near the current SSC and one near the Stennis 

International Airport. Approximately 9.8 miles of the proposed Project would traverse the range, but would 

remain at least one mile from the three target sectors. UXO represents a minimal risk of contamination, but 

a significant risk of explosion, as bombs and fuses that did not detonate during training exercises could 

potentially still detonate. 

4.17 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

4.17.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality

Aesthetic and visual effects must be considered when assessing a projects potential impact to surrounding 

communities as well as the effects of the project to properties protected under Section 106 of the Historic 

Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act and Section 6(f) of the Land 

and Water Conservation Act.

The Study Area is mainly undeveloped and is largely a combination of pine flatwoods and scrub-shrub 

wetlands with a scattering of rural residential property and a few businesses. There are two interstate routes, 

several two-lane paved and dirt roadways along with a cleared pipeline easement. The topography of the 

Study Area is relatively flat with a steady rise in terrain from about 8 feet in elevation at the southern end 

of the proposed rail corridor to approximately 43 feet at the tie-in to the existing NS line at the northern 

terminus of the proposed Project.

Existing views for travelers and/or residents from transportation facilities within the Study Area primarily 

consist of wooded vistas, with small areas of rural development, including residences. Along I-10, travelers 

would see minimal development, except the entrance gates to SSC. Along the northern section of Texas 

Flat Road, travelers would see more development, including residences, businesses and community 

buildings near Nicholson. 

4.18 Transportation

The existing transportation infrastructure in the Study Area includes port and airport facilities, railroads, 

and a roadway network. Gulf Coast region transportation facilities are also described.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-74

4.18.1 Existing Port and Airport Facilities

Port Bienville/Port Bienville Industrial Park

Port Bienville is owned and operated by the Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). As 

described previously, Port Bienville is a multi-modal, shallow draft barge port with a 12-foot channel 

located off the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near mile marker 24 on Mulatto Bayou in Hancock County (see

Figure 4.20). Port Bienville is a container, bulk and break-bulk seaport with trans-load capabilities. 

Existing port infrastructure within Port Bienville includes 600 feet of dock space, three primary berths, and 

an additional 300-foot berth and turning basin. The Port is located on the south end of the Study Area, with 

primary highway access provided by way of I-10, I-59 and U.S. 90. 

Port Bienville is also home to the Port 

Bienville Industrial Park that 

encompasses approximately 3,600 acres. 

Currently, 13 tenants are located within 

the industrial park, with a workforce of 

approximately 1,200 employees. 

Approximately 775 acres of land within 

the Port Bienville Industrial Park and 

other sites within Hancock County are 

allocated to foreign trade zone (FTZ) 

space. This area is formally designated as 

Mississippi Coast Foreign Trade Zone 

#92 (FTZ #92). The creation of an FTZ 

must be federally approved by the 

Foreign-Trade Zone Board. Overall, FTZ 

#92 is comprised of 5,000 acres of land 

located throughout Hancock, Jackson and 

Harrison counties. Foreign trade zones are 

physical areas within the United States 

that are treated by customs as though they 

were outside of the U.S. border. FTZs 

offer many potential benefits for 

warehousing/distribution and 

manufacturing operations. FTZs help U.S. 

companies overcome competitive 

disadvantages stemming from U.S. trade 

laws and procedures.

Approximately 1,220 acres of port-owned property on 17 sites is currently available for lease at the Port.64

In addition to port-owned property, five parcels of land are privately owned within the industrial park.

 

64 Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC).“Port Bienville Industrial Park.” 

http://portairspace.com/advantages/port_bienville_industrial_park (accessed November 21, 2016).

Figure 4.20: Port Bienville Industrial Park and Port 

Bienville Railroad

Source: MDOT Website, http://mdot.ms.gov/ports/bienville.html
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-75

Port Bienville is one of three ports serving Mississippi’s Gulf Coast. Two deep draft ports also serve the 

Gulf Coast including the Port of Gulfport in Gulfport, Mississippi and the Port of Pascagoula in Pascagoula, 

Mississippi (see Figure 4.21).

Figure 4.21: Regional Transportation Infrastructure

Source HCPHC Website, http://portairspace.com/site_selection/maps

Port Bienville Industrial Park – Planned and Future Projects

Major development initiatives have recently been undertaken or are proposed at Port Bienville Industrial 

Park. These projects, which would benefit from the expansion of regional transportation facilities within 

the Study Area, are briefly described below.65

Jindal Tubular USA LLC, one of the largest manufacturers of large diameter steel pipe, invested $10 million 

in their plant expansion for a production line to manufacture mortar-lined pipe for drinking water. Since 

beginning operations in August 2015, Jindal has increased employment at its Port Bienville Industrial Park 

plant from less than 50 to 200 personnel. 

DAK Americas, which is one of the largest plastic-resin manufacturers in the U.S., has announced plans 

for a new manufacturing plant at their existing site at the industrial park. The plant would include $40 

million of direct investment while adding 87 new full-time jobs. 

In December 2015, it was announced that the Port Bienville Industrial Park would receive $8 million in 

RESTORE Act funding (Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill) for the construction of a trans-load dock and 

ancillary infrastructure improvements including rail line expansion. The project will improve Port users’ 

ability to move product between modes of transportation and will increase Port throughput in support of 

industry onsite and offsite.

 

65 Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). 2015. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 

2015. Prepared by Finance Department, Janet E. Sacks, Chief Financial Officer.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-76

In 2001, the Multimodal Transportation Improvement Program was established by the Mississippi 

Legislature which created a special fund, known as the Multimodal Transportation Improvement Fund 

(MTIF).66 The MTIF allows the MDOT to appropriate funds for multimodal capital improvement projects 

at ports, airports, railroads, and public transit systems throughout the state. Annual funding for the program 

is currently $10 million. MDOT’s Multimodal Transportation Improvement Program plays a key role in 

keeping Mississippi’s non-highway transportation infrastructure maintained and in a state of good repair. 

Funds for the program have also contributed to significant upgrades and improvements to the intermodal 

system through advancements and expansions that otherwise would not have been completed, thus keeping 

the state competitive in goods movement nationally and internationally. In 2013, the distribution of 

multimodal funding for each mode of transportation consisted of: ports (38%), rail (12%), public transit 

(16%), and airports (34%).67

According to the Multimodal Investment Report,68 ports have experienced an increase in rail infrastructure 

projects allowing them to better handle and move freight, which in turn makes ports safer, improves the 

flow of goods, and provides faster service. These benefits have positioned ports to remain more competitive 

in the goods movement industry. In 2013, Port Bienville was the recipient of a port multimodal grant in the 

amount of $275,000 for repairs and upgrades to an internal roadway, and for pre-construction survey work 

for future Port expansion projects. In August 2016, Port Bienville Industrial Park was awarded a $375,500 

grant for the construction of bulkhead and dolphin upgrades to support tenant product movements.69

Stennis International Airport

Stennis International Airport, also owned by the HCPHC, is located on the eastern perimeter of the Study 

Area in Kiln, Mississippi. The airport is a general aviation airport with a 8,500-foot runway. Stennis 

recorded a total of 29,010 takeoffs and landings in fiscal year 2015, up from 22,008 the previous year.70

The first phase of a Terminal Hangar project opened at the airport in 2014 which included the expansion of 

an existing tenants operation to accommodate maintenance, repair and overhaul operations, in addition to 

an increase of rentable tenant space including a café. Apron and parking facilities were also constructed.71

Other recent landside and airside construction projects at the airport include: expansion of an apron at the 

northern area, rehabilitation of an existing apron, new taxiway markings and airport perimeter fencing. The 

Stennis Airport property also includes a business park, Stennis Airpark, which is a 1,800-acre business 

park. Businesses in Stennis Airpark include: Tyonek Services Facilities, Teledyne Optech CZMIL, Joint 

Airborne Lidar Bathmetry Technology Center, US Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, 

NOAA, FBO Million Air, Aircraft Rescue Firefighters Mississippi, Koening Stainless, and Lazy Magnolia 

Brewer.

 

66 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Multimodal Investment Report.

67 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Mississippi State Rail Plan. June 2011.

68 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Multimodal Investment Report.

69 Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). “Stennis Airport, Port Bienville Receive MDOT Grants.” August 1, 2016. 

http://portairspace.com/news/article/stennis-airport-port-bienville-receive-mdot-grants (accessed November 21, 2016)

70 Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2015. 

Prepared by Finance Department, Janet E. Sacks, Chief Financial Officer.

71 Ibid
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-77

Stennis International Airport - Planned and Future Projects

In 2013, Stennis Airport was awarded an MDOT Airport multimodal grant in the amount of $23,750 for 

matching funds for the construction of an apron expansion project.72 In August 2016, the same multimodal 

grant funding source provided approximately $252,500 to Stennis Airport for a parking/containment area 

for fuel trucks and ground support equipment.73

In December 2015, it was announced that the airport would receive $2 million in RESTORE Act funding 

(Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill) for Phase II of the Terminal Hangar project to construct a new 24,000 square 

foot hangar. The new hangar will also accommodate maintenance, repair and overhaul operations.74

4.18.2 Existing Roadway Network

Study Area Roadway Network

The roadways in the Study Area are comprised of a mix of roadway types ranging from interstate highways 

to local roadways. The Study Area is bisected by Interstate 10, while a small section of Interstate 59 passes 

through the northern portion of the Study Area in Pearl River County. I-59 and I-10 are both 4-lane divided 

facilities and are classified as interstate highways (see Figure 4.22).

U.S. Highway 11 (U.S. 11) is located in the northern portion of the Study Area in Nicholson. U.S. 11 is a 

2-lane roadway west of I-59 and is classified as a minor arterial. U.S. 11 ends on the west side of I-59 and 

becomes SR 607 on the east side of I-59. Within Nicholson and extending north to Picayune, U.S. 11 

parallels the NS Railroad. North of Picayune, the NS Railroad and U.S. 11 corridors diverge. 

U.S. Highway 90 (U.S. 90) is located in the southern portion of the Study Area in Pearlington and extends 

northeast to SR 607. U.S. 90 is classified as a minor arterial from the Mississippi-Louisiana state line to 

Lower Bay Road and is classified as a principal arterial for its remaining length within the Study Area.

From I-59 southward to I-10, SR 607 is classified as a major collector. South of I-10, SR 607 is classified 

as a principal arterial. The portion of SR 607 that traverses through SSC is known as Shuttle Parkway and 

is not open to the general public. Table 4.25 summarizes the Study Area roadways and their existing 

roadway typical sections.

 

72 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Mississippi State Rail Plan. June 2011.

73 Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). “Stennis Airport, Port Bienville Receive MDOT Grants.” August 1, 2016. 

http://portairspace.com/news/article/stennis-airport-port-bienville-receive-mdot-grants (accessed November 21, 2016)

74 Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). 2015. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 

2015. Prepared by Finance Department, Janet E. Sacks, Chief Financial Officer.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-78

Figure 4.22: Transportation Network
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-79

Table 4.25: Existing Roadway Functional Classification

Route Functional 

Classification Limits Roadway Typical Section

Interstate 59 Interstate Highway Throughout Pearl River County 4-lane divided with 

shoulders

Interstate 10 Interstate Highway Throughout Hancock County 4-lane divided with 

shoulders

U.S. Highway 11 Minor Arterial SR 43 to SR 607/I-59 2-lane

SR 607 Major Collector I-59 to Texas Flat Road 2-lane with narrow 

shoulders

SR 607 /

Shuttle Parkway Major Collector Texas Flat Road to I-10 4-lane divided, no shoulders

SR 607 Principal Arterial I-10 to U.S. 90 4-lane divided with 

narrow shoulders

U.S. Highway 90 Minor Arterial LA/MS state line to Lower Bay Road 2-lane with shoulders

U.S. Highway 90 Principal Arterial Lower Bay Road to SR 607/U.S. 90 2-lane with shoulders

U.S. Highway 90 Principal Arterial SR 607 to Rifle Range Road 4-lane divided with 

shoulders

Texas Flat Road Major Collector SR 607 to SR 603 2-lane unimproved

Flat Top Road Rural Minor Collector SSC to Old Kiln Road 2-lane unimproved

Lower Bay Road Local Roadway U.S. 90 to SR 603 2-lane

Old Lower Bay Road Local Roadway Lower Bay Road to SR 603 2-lane

Port and Harbor Drive Local Roadway Internal Port Road west of Lower 

Bay Road 2-lane

Sources: 

Functional Classification System map, Pearl River County, MS, MDOT Planning Division, 2015 (MDOT 2015b).

Functional Classification System map, Hancock County, MS, MDOT Planning Division, 2014 (MDOT 2014a).

Functional Classification System map, Picayune Urban Area, Pearl River County, MS, MDOT Planning Division, 2013 (MDOT 2013b).

Existing Highway-Railroad At-Grade Crossings

The information described below is extracted from FRA’s website under “Rail Safety”75 and “Grade 

Crossings.”76

Highway-railroad grade crossings are intersections where a highway crosses a railroad at-grade. To avoid 

collisions, warning/control devices are required at grade crossings just as intersecting roadways need stop 

signs or traffic signals. Active Grade Crossings have active warning and control devices such as bells, 

flashing lights, and gates, in addition to passive warning devices. Passive warning devices include 

crossbucks (the familiar x-shaped signs that mean yield to the train), yield or stop signs, and pavement 

markings. Passive Grade Crossings have only passive warning devices. These warning/control devices are 

specified in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

 

75 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). “Railroad Safety.” https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0010 (accessed July 8, 2016)

76 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). “Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Overview.” https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0156 (accessed July 8, 

2016)
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-80

Grade crossings may be public or private. Public at-grade crossings are roadways that are under the 

jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority. Private at-grade crossings are on privately owned 

roadways, such as on a farm or industrial area, and are intended for use by the owner or by the owner's 

licensees and invitees. Private at-grade crossings are not intended for public use and are not maintained by 

a public highway authority. A grade-separated crossing can be described as a location where the rail right 

of way is physically separated from the highway right of way; i.e., either the rail is elevated over the 

highway or the rail is depressed under the highway. 

Table 4.26 provides a summary of the existing highway-rail grade crossings in the northern portion of the 

Study Area along the existing NS right of way. Existing at-grade and grade-separated crossing locations 

are shown. 

Table 4.26: Existing Highway-Rail Grade Crossings along NS Rail Alignment

Roadway Crossing 

Location

NS Alignment 

Approximate 

Centerline 

Station (1)

Crossing Type and Disposition

At-Grade Grade-Separated; 

Public Private Public Crossing

U.S. Highway 11 Sta 7+91 Existing - -

Interstate 59 Sta 38+30 - - Existing; Rail over

Asa McQueen Road Sta 84+93 Existing - -

Unknown Roadway Sta 128+80 Existing - -

Unknown Roadway Sta 155+29 Existing - -

Ridge Road Sta 199+45 Existing - -

Texas Flat Road Sta 229+74 Existing - -

1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Conceptual Engineering Map Set

Figure 4.23 and Figure 4.24 depict the northbound and southbound approaches to the existing at-grade 

crossing at U.S. Highway 11, respectively, while Figure 4.25 depicts the existing at-grade crossing at Texas 

Flat Road. These photographs depict two key locations within the Study Area where existing at-grade 

crossings occur along the existing NS right of way.

Roadway Network – Planned and Future Projects

Future improvements to Study Area roadways are included within MDOT’s 5-year Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP). The only project included within the TIP that is located within the Study Area 

is the proposed U.S. 90 bridge replacement over the Pearl River near the Louisiana/Mississippi state line 

(Project 106663/301000). Initial funding in the amount of $30 million has been identified for the 

construction of this project, which is programmed to begin in 2020.77

 

77 Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). 2016b. “Stennis Airport, Port Bienville Receive MDOT Grants.” August 1, 2016. 

http://portairspace.com/news/article/stennis-airport-port-bienville-receive-mdot-grants (accessed November 21, 2016).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-81

Figure 4.23: U.S. Highway 11 At-Grade Crossing (view looking northbound)

Figure 4.24: U.S. Highway 11 At-Grade Crossing (view looking southbound)

Figure 4.25: Texas Flat Road At-Grade Crossing (view looking westbound)
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-82

4.18.3 Existing Rail Network

CSX Transportation

CSX Transportation (CSX), a subsidiary of CSX Corporation, is one of seven Class I railroads serving the 

United States rail and intermodal markets. The CSX rail network encompasses 21,000 route miles of tract 

in 23 states and the District of Columbia,78 which are primarily located in the eastern U.S., specifically east 

of the Mississippi River. 

CSX’s New Orleans & Mobile (NO&M) Subdivision is located between New Orleans, Louisiana and 

Mobile, Alabama and is approximately 138.5 miles long. Within Mississippi, the single-track mainline 

extends 74 miles between the Louisiana border and Alabama border. Within Mississippi, CSX also operates 

over 20 track miles via trackage rights.79 Approximately 3.5 miles of CSX’s mainline is located within the 

study area. 

Currently, the CSX mainline within Mississippi carries an average of 18 to 19 freight trains daily80, in 

addition to serving local in-line industries. This daily train volume is consistent with prior train activity 

reported within the Statewide Freight Plan. Train speeds along the CSX corridor vary from Class 3 freight 

train speeds of less than 39 miles per hour (mph) on some short segments, to Class 4 freight train speeds of 

up to 60 mph.81 There are 72 public highway-rail at-grade crossings along the CSX mainline; 35 of these 

crossings do not have Active warning devices.

Existing freight rail service to Port Bienville and the industrial park is provided by CSX. The Port Bienville 

Railroad connects to CSX’s mainline approximately 5 miles east of the Port near Ansley, Mississippi. The 

Port of Gulfport and the Port of Pascagoula are also served by CSX. In 2011, annual freight flow on the 

CSX was 16.4 million tons, with an estimated value of $27.6 billion. By 2040, annual freight flow is 

projected to be 24.1 million tons, with an estimated value of $50.7 billion.82

Norfolk Southern Railway Company

Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) operates 20,000 route miles in 22 states and the District of 

Columbia,83 which are primarily located in the eastern U.S. with principal gateways at Chicago, St. Louis, 

Kansas City, Memphis and New Orleans. Within Mississippi, the NS operates 211 route miles which 

includes ownership of 209 route miles and trackage rights over two route miles over two principal routes.84

The NS mainline route bisects a small portion of the Study Area in Nicholson and generally parallels U.S. 

Highway 11 northward to Picayune. The NS rail line continues farther north to Hattiesburg and Meridian; 

generally paralleling I-59.

Currently, the NS mainline carries an average of 22 trains a day through Nicholson, and averages about 115 

trains per week.85 Train speeds along the NS corridor generally allow freight speeds of up to 60 mph. There 

 

78 CSX. “Company Overview.” https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-U.S./company-overview/ (accessed November 21, 2016)

79 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Mississippi State Rail Plan. June 2011

80 Larry Ratcliffe (CSX), phone call with Kevin Keller (HDR), November 16, 2016.

81 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan Final Report. February 2015.

82 Ibid

83 Norfolk Southern (NS). 2016. “Our Network” http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/

shipping-options/intermodal/why-norfolk-southern-intermodal/our-network.html (accessed November 21, 2016).

84 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Mississippi State Rail Plan. June 2011

85 Alan Sisk (NS), email to Kevin Keller (HDR), October 20, 2016.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-83

are 30 public highway-rail at-grade crossings along the NS mainline; 7 of these crossings do not have Active 

warning devices.86 Passenger rail service is provided on the NS mainline. Amtrak currently operates the 

Cresent, which is a passenger train that provides daily service between New Orleans and New York (1 train 

per day in each direction).

In 2011, annual freight flow on the NS was 

28.8 million tons, with an estimated value of 

$36.4 billion. By 2040, annual freight flow is 

projected to be 41.8 million tons, with an 

estimated value of $64.5 billion.87

Rail service to SSC was previously provided by 

way of a former rail spur that connects to the 

NS lead track in Nicholson, just east of U.S. 

Highway 11. The right of way and track 

associated with the former rail line is owned by 

NS (see Figure 4.26). The existing rail right of 

way varies in width but is generally 200 feet 

wide. Rail service to SSC ceased over 10 years 

ago; subsequently, maintenance of the existing 

track has not been undertaken. 

Port Bienville Railroad

The Port Bienville Railroad is a Class III, short line railroad that provides rail service to several businesses

within the Port Bienville Industrial Park and connects these rail users to CSX’s east‐west mainline along the

Gulf Coast. From Port Bienville, the PBRR extends east approximately 5 miles to Ansley, Mississippi and 

connects to CSX’s mainline. PBRR owns and operates a total 9 route miles.88 Similar to Class I railroads, 

the single-tract PBRR has the ability to transport 286,000-pound carloads. 

The PBRR currently operates 6-day service with 2 trains per day (1 train inbound and 1 train outbound). 

Each train averages 22 cars per train each way. This daily average is based on the actual number of total 

cars serviced (49,013 cars) from January 2013 to present. Annually, PBRR handles approximately 6,200 

train cars. PBRR train speeds are generally 20 to 30 mph. There are 2 public highway-rail at-grade crossing 

along the PBRR; each crossing Lower Bay Road with the eastern crossing located at the Port entrance. 

Active warning devices were recently installed at this grade crossing. 

The PBRR maintenance yard is located immediately east of Lower Bay Road, and includes a 3,000-foot 

siding and six storage tracks of varying length, ranging from approximately 2,000 feet to 3,000 feet. Storage 

capacity is estimated at 429 cars.89

As part of MDOT’s Multimodal Transportation Improvement Program, in 2013 Port Bienville Railroad was 

awarded a Rail multimodal grant in the amount of $260,000 for rail improvements to a dry bulk terminal. 

 

86 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan Final Report. February 2015.

87 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan Final Report. February 2015.

88 Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Mississippi State Rail Plan. June 2011

89 Ibid

Figure 4.26: Existing Norfolk Southern Right of Way 

and Railroad Track between Nicholson and SSC
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-84

Port Bienville – Planned and Future Projects

In August 2016, PBRR was the recipient of a $398,000 grant for the construction of a 1,270-foot rail spur.90

Other recent PBRR construction projects include expansion of the rail car wash and adjacent rail line, storm 

drainage improvements consisting of the replacement of culverts, and the installation of lights and gates at 

the two at-grade rail crossings on Lower Bay Road.

Passenger Rail

Amtrak, also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, currently operates intercity passenger 

rail service within Mississippi. Daily passenger rail service between New Orleans and Chicago is provided 

along Kansas City Southern (KCS) track via the City of New Orleans. Passenger rail service is also provided 

between New Orleans and New York via the Crescent. The Crescent route runs along NS mainline track 

within the Study Area. Each of these Amtrak routes consists of one train per day in each direction.

Prior to Hurricane Katrina (August 2005), Amtrak operated intercity passenger rail service between New 

Orleans and Florida via the Sunset Limited. The route followed CSX’s single-track mainline through 

Mississippi, including a small portion of the study area. Since then, Amtrak has completed several studies 

(including ridership projections, revenue forecasts and infrastructure improvements) to explore options to 

resume passenger rail service. 

The restoration of passenger rail service along the Gulf Coast is a key initiative among several states 

including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. On February 18, 2016, representatives from the 

FRA, Amtrak, state Departments of Transportation, elected officials, and the Southern Rail Commission 

embarked on a two-day Gulf Coast Passenger Rail Train Trip—the first passenger rail service since 2005 

(Southern Rail Commission 2016). Starting at the Union Passenger Terminal in New Orleans and 

terminating in Jacksonville, Florida, thousands of enthusiastic residents and community groups greeted the 

train at each of the 14 stations along its journey, further demonstrating support for passenger rail service 

for both mobility and economic reasons. Indications are that passenger rail service may be viable if CSX’s 

mainline route is double-tracked in the future.

CSX’s route through Mississippi also comprises a portion of the Gulf Coast Corridor that was federally 

designated as a high-speed rail corridor in 1998 and further extended in 2000. Between Houston and 

Atlanta, total mileage for this designated corridor is 1,025 miles. High-speed (110 miles per hour service) 

passenger rail service would only be viable if CSX’s mainline route is double-tracked in the future.

Railroad Network – Planned and Future Projects

Based on the Mississippi State Rail Plan, there are no other known rail project planned within the study 

area. 

4.18.4 Multimodal Corridors

A key element of the Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan was the identification of primary freight corridors 

in the state. Several multimodal freight corridors comprise the Mississippi Freight Network (MFN). The 

MFN is intended to define these critical corridors and is comprised of primary multimodal freight corridors, 

major intermodal facilities (marine ports, river ports, and commercial airports) served by these freight 

corridors, connecting roadway and rail links serving those intermodal facilities; and the state’s major freight 

 

90 Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). “Stennis Airport, Port Bienville Receive MDOT Grants.” August 1, 2016. 

http://portairspace.com/news/article/stennis-airport-port-bienville-receive-mdot-grants (accessed November 21, 2016)
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-85

generators. Based on these criteria, the MFN identified Tier I and Tier II Corridors. The Tier I Corridors 

can generally be described as primary/interstate freight corridors with network connectivity to national 

transportations systems such as interstate highways and Class I railroads. Included among the Tier I 

Corridors are the I-10/CSX (Gulf Coast) Corridor and the I-59/NS Corridor. Both of these Tier I Corridors 

are aligned to a major interstate and Class I railroad main line. Each corridor features a combination of 

intermodal facilities (ports, airport, or rail) that are served by both a highway and rail connector. 

Multimodal Corridor Network - Planned and Future Projects

Future conditions associated with the Tier I Corridors defined in the Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan 

were assessed using a comprehensive approach. The comprehensive approach considered a combination of 

all the intermodal facilities for assessing the corridor needs, as well as corridor infrastructure requirements. 

Each of the short-range and long-range recommended improvements to the Tier I Corridors would provide 

a benefit to the proposed Project. Key features associated with each of these multimodal Tier I Corridors 

include:

▪ I-10/CSX – Short-Range and Long-Range Recommended Improvements 

― Upgrade all public at-grade crossings to full active crossing warning devices to improve safety 

(35 out of 72).

― Widen I-10 along the entire corridor to enhance reliability.

― Enhance rail access between CSX and the Port of Gulfport to improve operational efficiency.

― Raise 7 of 48 bridges along I-59 to meet 16-foot vertical clearance requirement.

― Double track CSX mainline to accommodate passenger rail.

▪ I-59/NS – Short-Range and Long-Range Recommended Improvements 

― Upgrade all public at-grade crossings to full active crossing warning devices to improve safety 

(7 out of 30).

― Construct track improvements along NS rail corridor in Picayune and Laurel to raise operating 

speed and enhance reliability. 

― Upgrade I-59 to improve safety—21 miles out of 171 miles along I-59 have high crash 

segments. 

― Raise 1 of 9 bridges along I-10 to meet 16-foot vertical clearance requirement.

― Double track NS mainline to accommodate high-speed passenger rail.

4.19 Utilities

Overhead and underground utilities in the Study Area were identified using Mississippi Automated 

Resource Information System (MARIS) and Stennis Space Center GIS data and the National Pipeline 

Mapping System (NPMS) Public Map Viewer91 for Hancock and Pearl River Counties. 

 

91 https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/, accessed on 8/18/16.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-86

4.19.1 Underground Pipelines

Several underground pipelines are located within the vicinity of the proposed track alignment at the 

locations shown in Table 4.27 and on Figure 4.27.

Table 4.27: Underground Pipeline Crossings

Type (Commodity) Owner Description/Comments

Gas Pipelinea/

Gas Transmission Pipeline 

(Natural Gas)c

Gulf South Pipeline 

Company, LPc

The first of three crossings is northwest of Interstate 59 

near Sta. 32+00. It then crosses over the track near Sta. 

A 154+00 and back near Sta. A 159+00.

Natural Gas Pipelineb unknown Pipeline crosses Texas Flat Road west of Mainline Road

Gas Pipelinea unknown North-South pipeline crosses east of Mainline Road

Gas Pipelinea/

Hazardous Liquid Pipeline 

(Natural Gas Liquids)c

Tri-States NGL 

Pipeline, LLCc East-West pipeline

Hazardous Liquid Pipeline 

(Non-HVL Product)c Colonial Pipeline, Co.c North-South pipeline east of Mainline Road

Gas Transmission Pipeline 

(Calgon 4-inch Natural Gas)c Enmark Energy, Inc.c East-West pipeline along south side of existing Port Bienville tracks.

Sources: 

a – MARIS GIS data (msgas layer)

b – Stennis Space Center GIS data (NatGasPipelines layer)

c – NPMS Public Map Viewer

d – HDR Conceptual Rail Alignment Maps

4.19.2 Overhead Transmission Lines

Based on GIS data,92 high tension transmission lines cross the Study Area. The proposed rail alignment 

crosses the transmission lines in two locations—south of I-10 and at the intersection with the Port Bienville 

Railroad. 

4.19.3 Wells

Based on GIS data,93 numerous water wells and/or oil and gas wells were identified within the Study Area. 

No water wells are located within 100 feet of the proposed track centerline.

4.19.4 Water and Sewer

Stennis Space Center GIS data was the only readily available data on water and wastewater utility lines.

The northern portion of the Study Area in Nicholson, MS is within the jurisdiction of the Nicholson Water 

and Sewer Association. The portion of the alignment within Hancock County is within the jurisdiction of 

the Hancock County Water and Sewer District. 

 

92 Source: MARIS; Layer Name: majr_transm10

93 Source: MARIS; Layer Names: USGS_Wells09 and OGB_wells2013
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-87

Figure 4.27: Pipeline and Transmission Line Crossings
This page left intentionally blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-1

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter provides a description of the potential beneficial and adverse social, economic, and 

environmental impacts that could be expected with and without the proposed Project. This analysis

considers both the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative (Alternative C). This chapter also includes 

discussion on measures proposed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts associated with the 

proposed Project. If FRA funding is used to construct the Project, FRA would require the future Project 

Sponsor to comply with the commitments and mitigation measures outlined in this chapter.

For the assessment of some resources, including cultural resources, wetlands, habitat, and threatened and 

endangered species, a smaller corridor was used to evaluate existing conditions instead of the entire Study 

Area. This was due to the intensive field work required to survey for these resources, which would be cost 

prohibitive for the entire 231-square mile Study Area. Throughout this chapter several terms are used to 

describe these different areas of effect and/or corridors assessed for the proposed Project. These terms are 

described below:

▪ Study Area – 231 square mile area of Hancock and Pearl River Counties, bounded by the 

community of Nicholson to the north, Port Bienville Industrial Park to the south, the Pearl River to 

the west, and Stennis International Airport and the community of Kiln to the east.

▪ Project Corridor – 200-foot corridor within which the proposed rail line will be constructed. 

▪ Area of Potential Effect (APE) - 200-foot wide buffer along the identified rail alignment that was 

surveyed for cultural resources. 

▪ Survey Corridor - 200-foot wide buffer along the identified rail alignment that was surveyed in the 

field for wetlands, habitat, and threatened and endangered species. 

5.1 Land Use

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Under No-build conditions, there would be no effects, positive or negative, to 

existing land use designations. 

Build Alternative. The proposed alignment begins in the northern section of the Study Area at the NS 

Switch yard in Nicholson. The Build Alternative follows the existing inactive NS rail line in a southern 

direction until it enters the SSC acoustical buffer zone. Since this section of the Build Alternative would be 

located within the existing corridor consisting of inactive track and rail bed, upgrading the rail facility for 

this section would not result in any changes to existing land use or future development patterns (see Figure 

5.1).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-2

Figure 5.1: Land Use Impacts
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-3

As the alignment continues in a southeastern direction it begins to diverge from the existing NS corridor 

and onto new right-of-way. The Build Alternative between the existing NS line and 1.5 miles south of U.S. 

90 is located completely within the SSC acoustical buffer zone. Habitable building structures are strictly 

prohibited within the acoustical buffer zone and development rights have been purchased by the federal 

government, therefore no development can occur within this area. However, transportation facilities are not 

restricted from being constructed. Because of these development restrictions within the acoustical buffer 

zone, the construction of the proposed Build Alternative would have no impacts on future land uses within 

the buffer zone. Right-of-way acquisition for the Build Alternative would directly convert 222 acres of

existing undeveloped and uninhabited land uses, the majority of which is currently being used for 

silviculture operations, to a transportation use. The conversion of these is considered minimal when 

compared to the overall undeveloped land within the SSC buffer zone (0.20%) and the Study Area (0.17%).

Approximately 1.5 miles south of U.S. 90, the alignment exits the SSC acoustical buffer zone and continues 

south for 1.7 miles to PBRR. This area currently consists of rural residential, industrial/mining, wetlands 

and undeveloped land. The Build Alternative would convert approximately 23 acres of existing 

undeveloped land uses to a transportation use. The direct impacts to existing land use would be considered 

minimal when compared to the total undeveloped land in the Study Area as a whole (0.017 %). Future land

use within this section of the Study Area has the highest potential to change as a result of the Build 

Alternative, where industrial and other commercial development could occur between the Build Alternative 

and Port Bienville Industrial Park. These potential land use changes are consistent with future land use 

designations identified in the Hancock County Comprehensive Plan, where this area is designated for 

industrial, office park and office retail uses.94

5.2 Farmland

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Under No-Build conditions, there would be no impacts to area soils or

protected farmland.

Build Alternative. The total right-of-way corridor for the Build Alternative would require a total of 

approximately 287 acres of land. Sixty-five acres of the corridor along the existing NS rail line are currently 

used for transportation. Approximately 222 acres of new right-of-way within the corridor would be 

converted to a transportation use. 

Under the FPPA guidance, farmlands are defined based on soil types (7 CFR 657.5). The identification of 

important farmlands is determined from currently published soil survey maps and data produced by the 

NRCS National Cooperative Soil Survey Program. Based on the soil types identified by the NRCS Web 

Soil Survey (WSS) online mapping95, it was determined that 134 acres within the Project corridor meet the 

requirements for prime and unique farmland, and 1 acre of the Project corridor meets the requirements for 

statewide and locally important farmland. These 135 acres of relevant soils make up approximately 0.25%

of the prime, unique and/or statewide important farmlands within Hancock County. 

NRCS uses a land evaluation and site assessment system to establish a farmland conversion impact rating 

score; the assessment is completed using form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating For 

 

94 The Hancock County Interim Comprehensive Plan November 2, 2008

95 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/, accessed 12/25/2016.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-4

Corridor Type Projects, which assesses non-soil related criteria such as the potential for impact on the local 

agricultural economy if the land is converted to non-farm use and compatibility with existing agricultural 

use.96 This form determines the amount of land that is currently in non-urban and agricultural uses, based 

on what is currently being farmed and the agricultural investments within and adjacent to the Project 

corridor. The only active agricultural activity identified in the Study Area is silviculture. Based on the form, 

the site assessment score is under 160, the threshold for determining impact to protected farmland. For 

projects with a score less than 160, no alternative actions (alternative sites, modifications or mitigation) 

need to be considered for farmlands impacts. Coordination with NRCS was initiated in the form of a written 

letter, project description and map and NRCS-CPA-106 form to the state soil scientist on October 19, 2016. 

5.2.1 Conservation Easements

Because there are no conservation easements located within the Study Area, the implementation of the 

Build Alternative railroad corridor would have no impact on any of these sites. 

5.3 Socioeconomics

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Therefore, industries that may be interested in locating to in the Study Area 

due to the addition of dual Class I rail service would most likely not find Hancock County a viable option. 

The potential enhancement of economic opportunities in the Study Area would not occur.

Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would provide a link between the PBRR and the Norfolk 

Southern line, which would support economic development and growth in Hancock County and the Port 

Bienville Industrial Park. This would provide dual Class I rail service, at the Park, which would make the 

area more appealing to industries that benefit from or require this rail service. Potential benefits of this 

service would be:

▪ Attracting new businesses that would provide job growth;

▪ Reducing rail shipping costs; 

▪ Additional transportation options for moving freight; and

▪ Providing alternative response options in the event of emergency and natural disaster situations.

The Port Bienville Economic Development Benefits and Opportunities Analysis completed in Phase 1 

estimated between 680 and 700 new direct rail construction jobs would be created with ongoing 

construction and would generate an additional 150 to 425 jobs from expanding or new businesses related 

to the rail line development. Subsequent to the rail construction, the economic development benefits study 

estimated an additional 650 direct manufacturing jobs attracted to the Study Area by the year 2025. In 

addition to the direct jobs from rail served business expansions or new locations, an additional 1,154 

additional indirect jobs would result from the impacts of the direct job growth in the manufacturing section 

by year 2025 for a total increase in workforce of 2,634. Compared to Study Area baseline employment, 

the rail connection is forecasted to result in a 33.8 percent increase in direct manufacturing employment 

and a 3.5 percent increase in overall employment within the Study Area.

 

96 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/landuse/fppa/, accessed 9/25/17.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-5

In 2013, there were two industrial prospects evaluating sites in Hancock County. Both would require access 

to dual Class I rail service. Collectively, these prospects would have invested slightly over $650 million in 

plant and equipment and would have employed approximately 450 people. The introduction of this number 

of jobs would generate more than half the existing jobs currently in place within the Port Bienville Industrial 

Park. These types of investments would become more likely if dual Class I rail access was provided by the 

Build Alternative. 

New transportation infrastructure enables businesses to take advantage of additional capacity and modify 

their logistics and supply chains, improving delivery services to their customers. The proposed Port 

Bienville rail connector would allow companies in the park to modify supplier networks, which may reduce 

their costs or enhance the quality of inputs. Access to dual Class 1 rail service can improve transit times, 

provide alternative response options in the event of natural disasters, increase transportation service levels, 

and provide access to broader markets and more customers – all of which are critical to a company’s ability 

to successfully compete in an international marketplace. 

A 2012 American Chemical Council study showed that captive facilities (facilities having access to a single 

rail line) had 30 percent higher shipping costs than non-captive facilities (facilities having access to multiple 

rail lines). With the addition of dual Class 1 rail service, businesses within the Port Bienville Industrial Park 

would have a more competitive edge. 

Currently, businesses at the Port Bienville Industrial Park receive raw materials and other shipments by 

barge, rail or truck. In order to move freight north, it must then continue by truck. Connection with the dual 

Class I rail service would provide businesses with options for rail service, which provides opportunities to 

avoid current delays experienced at Gentilly Yard in New Orleans. An additional connection to the NS line 

would provide options for moving freight, which could contribute to improved delivery times and 

reliability, reduced fuel usage from trucks, and allow more freight to move at one time.

In addition, an additional rail line would improve the resilience of economic activities in Hancock County 

in the event of a natural disaster. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina was devastating to the Mississippi coast. Due 

to the hurricane, the CSX rail line had to be completely shut down in the area for six months. This required 

shipments to be rerouted through several states, causing delays and additional costs to businesses in the 

industrial park. Construction of the Build Alternative would provide businesses with alternate shipping 

routes, which could potentially reduce the impacts of future natural disasters.

With the benefits of attracting new businesses and increasing workforce expected by the proposed Project, 

it is likely that increases in employment and income may be experienced in the region.

However, because 76% of the Study Area is within the SSC buffer zone, the demographics of the area, 

including population, population make-up (race, age, disability) and general housing characteristics are not 

expected to experience appreciable changes as a result of the Project. Education levels would not be 

affected by the proposed Project. 

5.4 Environmental Justice

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Therefore, impact to minority and low income populations would not occur. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-6

Build Alternative. Under the Build Alternative, possible impacts to minority and low income populations 

could only occur in either the northern and/or southern section of the Study Area. Habitation and building 

structures that could be inhabited are strictly prohibited within the buffer zone, which is enforced by SSC. 

Additionally, the Build Alternative alignment in the northern section near Nicholson uses the existing NS 

rail line. Since the rail line already exists, impacts would be limited. 

The Build alternative would cross five of the eleven block groups (BG) within the Study Area. These are 

identified as Census Tracts (CT) 304, BG 1 and BG 3; CT 306.02, BG 3; CT 9505.01, BG 1; and CT 9507, 

BG 4. Of these block groups, only three have higher percentages of low-income populations than their 

respective counties, CT 306.2, BG 3; CT 9505.01 BG 1, and CT 9507, BG 4 (see Table 5.1). As show in

Figure 5.2, CT 306.2, BG 3 is mainly within the SSC acoustical buffer zone, therefore, there are no 

residences in the block group impacted by the Build Alternative. CT 9505.01 BG 1 and CT 9507, BG 4 are 

located near Nicholson. 

The Build Alternative would not cause any relocations and would not directly impact any residential areas 

in these block groups. 

Table 5.1: Low-Income Data by Block Group – Income in 2013 Below Poverty Level

Hancock County Pearl River County

Total County

CT 302, 

BB 5

CT 303, 

BG 8

CT 304, 

BG 1

CT 304, 

BG 2

CT 304, 

BG 3

CT 306.2, BG 1CT 306.2, BG 3CT 306.2, BG 4

Total County

CT 9505.01, BG 1

CT 9507, 

BG 2

CT9507 

BG 4

Total 

Households 18,891 149 996 260 346 416 581 421 471 20,606 749 1013 837

Households 

with Incomes 

below the 

poverty level 

3,798 63 357 0 96 40 35 202 35 4,229 285 263 364

Percentage of 

Total Household 

Incomes below 

the poverty 

level 

20.0% 42.3% 35.8% 0% 27.7% 9.6% 6.0% 47.9% 7.4% 21.0% 38.0% 25.9% 43.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates, Table B17017; Census Tracts in blue are those which the Build Alternative would cross. 

Those which are underlined have higher percentages than their respective counties.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-7

Figure 5.2: Low-Income Population
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-8

As noted previously, the Build Alternative would only cross CT 304, BG 1 and BG3; CT 306.02, BG 3; 

CT 9505.01, BG 1; and CT 9507, BG 4. Only two of these block groups have higher percentages of 

minorities than their respective counties. These block groups are CT 9507, BG 4 (31 percent), located in 

Pearl River County and CT 306.03, BG 3 (33 percent), located in Hancock County see Table 5.2. In 

Nicholson, (BG 4) the rail line is an existing facility and there would be only minimal impacts related to 

the construction of the Build Alternative. Construction activities in this area would be limited to upgrading 

the existing rail bed, which would include replacing rail, ties, and surface and lining the track; in addition, 

the timber trestle over Alligator Branch would be replaced. Block group CT 306.2, BG 3 as stated above, 

is mainly within the SSC acoustical buffer zone (see Figure 5.3).

Table 5.2: Minorities Populations by Block Group

Race Total Population White Minority

HANCOCK COUNTY MISSISSIPPI

Total County Number 45,627 39,686 5,941

% of Total 100% 87% 13%

CT 302, BG 5 Number 425 417 8

% of Total 100% 98% 2%

CT 303, BG 8 Number 2,667 2,124 543

% of Total 100% 80% 20%

CT 304, BG 1 Number 686 637 49

% of Total 100% 93% 7%

CT 304, BG 2 Number 870 431 439

% of Total 100% 50% 50%

CT 304, BG 3 Number 926 858 68

% of Total 100% 93% 7%

CT 306.02, BG 1 Number 1,540 1,388 152

% of Total 100% 90% 10%

CT 306.02, BG 3 Number 810 546 264

% of Total 100% 67% 33%

CT 306.02, BG 4 Number 1,083 959 124

% of Total 100% 89% 11%

PEARL RIVER COUNTY MISSISSIPPI

Total County Number 55,196 46,411 8,785

% of Total 100% 84% 16%

CT 9505.01, BG 1 Number 2,027 1,732 295

% of Total 100% 85% 15%

CT 9507, BG 2 Number 2,930 2,268 662

% of Total 100% 77% 23%

CT 9507, BG 4

Number 2,213 1,533 680

% of Total 100% 69% 31%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates. Census Tracts in blue are those which the Build Alternative would 

cross. The bold and underlined percentages are higher than the respective counties.

Although the Build Alternative would cross through the block groups, where low-income and/or minority 

populations were identified, no relocations and no disproportionately high and adverse impacts would occur 

within minority and/or low-income areas. There would be two residences impacted by noise and vibration 

and one additional residence impacted by vibration within BG 4, near the northern‐most end of the Study 

Area, at the U.S. 11 at‐grade crossing. These impacts occur adjacent to an existing rail line and at-grade 

crossing. Mitigation for these impacted residences has not yet been determined but would be finalized 

before the FEIS. For more information on noise and vibration impacts, see Section 5.9.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-9

Figure 5.3: Minority Population
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-10

As documented in Section 5.3, Socioeconomics, the Build Alternative is expected to bring development 

and employment opportunities to the area; these benefits would be experienced by all communities within 

the Study Area, including low-income and/or minority communities. Since the impacts (both adverse and 

beneficial) to minority and low-income households would not be disproportionate, there are no EJ concerns 

associated with the Build Alternative. 

5.5 Communities and Community Facilities

5.5.1 Communities

There are no communities or neighborhoods within the limits of the Build Alternative corridor, although 

the two neighborhoods (Joe Fleming and Old Lower Bay Road) are adjacent or close to the corridor

(approximately 600 and 1600 feet, respectively) (see Figure 5.4). 

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Therefore, no effects, positive or negative, are expected to communities and 

neighborhoods.

Build Alternative. In Hancock County, the Build Alternative is approximately 0.3-mile from the closest 

house in the Old Lower Bay Road Community. Within Pearl River County, the alignment of the Build 

Alternative is adjacent to the rear of the Joe Fleming Road neighborhood in Nicholson; however, this is 

along an existing, inactive rail line. Since no new right-of-way would be required, none of the houses within 

these communities would be relocated as part of the project.

Under the Build Alternative, the community residents could experience delays during construction; periodic 

delays at the at-grade crossings; and visual or noise impairments from either construction or project 

implementation. 

Access and Delays

The proposed Project includes numerous existing and proposed crossings. The four grade separated 

crossings (one existing roadway and three new roadways) should not cause any effects to existing travel 

patterns since they would bridge existing roads. The proposed at-grade crossings are being added at 13 

public roads and nine private local roads. 

Much of the roadway network consists of the unpaved, property access roads within the SSC acoustical 

buffer zone; these roads are not generally used by the public for daily travel. Residents along Old Lower 

Bay Road are the closest community to a new at-grade crossing and are most likely to experience changes 

in access or delays. 

For detailed information on new road crossings, delays, and safety see Section 5.18 Transportation Impacts.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-11

Figure 5.4: Communities and Community Facilities
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-12

Noise Impacts

Under the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222), locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at 

least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings. If a train is traveling 

faster than 60 mph, engineers would not sound the horn until it is within 1⁄4 mile of the crossing, even if the 

advance warning is less than 15 seconds. The maximum volume level for the train horn is 110 decibels. 

The minimum sound level remains 96 decibels. Localities can establish “new quiet zones” to counter the 

noise issues. Per the “Quiet Zone FRAWeb Report.”97 Nicholson is not currently a designated Quiet Zone.

For detailed information on noise impacts, see Section 5.9 Noise and Vibration.

The Build Alternative would include minimal effects to the communities related to construction activities 

and the implementation of new grade crossings, specifically the at-grade crossings which may cause minor 

delays when trains are crossing.

5.5.2 Parks and Recreation

There are three parks, four specialty recreational facilities and three RV parks within the Study Area, 

however none are within or directly adjacent to the Build Alternative corridor. Most of these sites are near 

the towns of Pearlington (5) or Kiln (2). One is located within Port Bienville Industrial Park and others are 

in remote parts of the Study Area. See Figure 5.4.

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no impacts to park or recreation 

facilities in the Study Area. Neither parks nor recreational areas would experience changes in access, delays

or visual or noise impairments from either construction or Project implementation.

Build Alternative. Under the Build Alternative, there would be no direct impacts to any parks or recreation 

sites within the Study Area. Visitors to parks and recreations areas could experience delays during 

construction. Impacts to accessibility to any parks during construction would be minimal and temporary. 

Post construction, visitors to parks and recreation areas could experience periodic delays at the proposed 

at-grade crossings, particularly those visitors using Old Lower Bay Road. However, because train traffic 

would be limited to one inbound and one outbound train per day, the likelihood of delays would be minimal.

5.5.3 Community Services

Schools

A total of four schools and one bus maintenance facility are located within the Study Area. Three of the 

schools, and the bus facility, are within Hancock County and one school is in Nicholson, Pearl River 

County. The closest school on the southern end of the project is South Hancock Elementary School, which 

is approximately 5 miles from the Build Alternative.98 At the northern end of the project, Nicholson 

Elementary is located on U.S. 11, approximately 0.20-mile from the location where the existing inactive 

NS rail line crosses U.S. 11. There is no fence in front of the school along U.S. 11. While Mississippi does 

participate in the Safe Routes to School program, there are no sidewalks within the vicinity of the school.

 

97 Federal Railroad Administration, http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0889, website visited 6.1.16

98 The school itself is outside the study area; however, due to the campus falling with the study area project affects have been included.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-13

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Under the No-Build condition, no effects, positive or negative, are expected 

to schools and school buses. Neither schools nor school buses would experience changes in access or delays

from either construction or Project implementation. Nicholson Elementary would not have increased noise 

effects due to additional train traffic; however, the rail line is still being used. Train traffic crossing U.S. 

11, which is approximately 0.20-mile from the school has the potential to cause noise impacts associated 

with existing rail operations.

Build Alternative. Under the Build Alternative, the schools and school buses could experience delays 

during construction; periodic delays at the at-grade crossings; and visual or noise impairments from either 

construction or project implementation.

Access and Delays

The Hancock County school bus routes located within the Study Area are primarily between Pearlington 

and South Hancock Elementary School. The Hancock County school bus shop is located within the Study 

Area, in Kiln. The existing school bus route along Lower Bay Road crosses two existing at-grade rail 

crossings of the PBRR at the entrance of the Port Bienville Industrial Park and above the intersection of 

Lower Bay Road and 34th Street north of Ansley. The proposed at-grade crossing at Old Lower Bay Road 

is the only proposed crossing that would directly affect the school bus route and it would have a minimal 

effect. While additional freight traffic could cause minor delays, the school system already uses a route that 

has the potential for train traffic. Alteration of the bus route is not viable based on the location of residences 

along Old Lower Bay Road and within Pearlington.

School bus routes were requested from both the Bay St. Louis-Waveland and the Pearl River School 

Districts, but none were received after multiple requests. Only Nicholson Elementary School in the Pearl 

River School District is within the Study Area. Given its proximity to the U.S. 11 at-grade crossing, it is 

likely that school buses may encounter delays at this crossing. However, Port Bienville Industrial Park 

estimates two trains at this crossing per day and therefore, delays are expected to be occasional and minimal. 

Safety

The Build Alternative would include minimal effects to schools and school bus routes related to 

construction activities and the implementation of new grade crossings, specifically the at-grade crossings, 

which may cause minor delays when trains are crossing. On U.S. 11, pedestrian crossing signs to 

accommodate Nicholson Elementary School students should be considered, if warranted.

At the northern end of the Project, school bus routes picking up children south of Nicholson and the existing 

at-grade crossings on U.S. 11, traffic along Jackson Landing Road could also be affected. With Project 

implementation, the crossing on U.S. 11, which is currently in use for rail car storage, would have additional 

train traffic; therefore, school bus schedules could be affected, although freight trains do not run on regular 

daily schedules the way that passenger trains do. 

Noise Impairments

Nicholson Elementary would be close enough to experience construction noise during the building of the 

Project; however, improvements would be limited to replacing and upgrading the current rail, cross-ties, 

surface, and lining the track for this section of the existing NS rail line. The schools on the southern end are 

not close enough to experience noise from construction or project implementation, specifically noise 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-14

associated with trains crossing at roadways. Nicholson Elementary would be affected with additional trains 

utilizing the NS rail line through Nicholson, due to additional noise, from the trains themselves and with 

train horns at the U.S. 11 (see Section 5.9 for noise and vibration impacts). 

Churches and Cemeteries

There are 8 churches and 8 cemeteries within the Study Area, all within Hancock County; however, none 

are within the corridor for the Build Alternative. 

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Under these conditions, no impacts, positive or negative, are expected to 

churches or cemeteries. 

Build Alternative. Based on the location of the churches and cemeteries, in comparison to the location of 

the various communities, it is not likely that access would be affected by the proposed Project, in particular 

at any proposed at-grade crossings on local roads. However, this would be dependent on the routes Study 

Area residents travel to their respective churches and cemeteries. Unlike with school buses, independent 

drivers can change their routes as needed if they encounter trains. Also, most people attend churches and 

church activities that are within their own communities. 

There would be no expected impacts, positive or negative, to churches and cemeteries, under the Build 

Alternative.

Public Government Facilities

There are eight public government facilities within the Study Area, including five federal facilities and three 

county facilities. Four of the five federal facilities are within SSC and one is in Nicholson; Hancock County 

Public Safety Complex and Hancock County Animal Shelter are located in Bay St. Louis and Kiln, 

respectively. None of these facilities are located within the corridor of the Build Alternative.

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Under the No-Build Alternative, no public government facilities would 

experience changes in access, delays or visual or noise impairments from either construction or Project 

implementation.

Build Alternative. Under the Build Alternative, there would be no direct impacts to public facilities or 

relocations of these facilities. Visitors to public facilities could experience minor changes in accessibility, 

delays during construction, periodic delays at the new at-grade crossings, and visual or noise impairments 

from either construction or Project implementation.

Public/Private Social and Cultural Facilities

There is one public or private social facility within the Study Area, INFINITY, located within the SSC fee 

area. There are no such facilities within the limits of the Build Alternative. 

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no changes to existing conditions 

or impacts to social or cultural facilities. 

Build Alternative. Under the Build Alternative, there would be no direct impacts to social or cultural 

facilities or relocations of these facilities. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-15

It is not expected that any of the above public/private social and cultural facilities would be affected by the 

proposed Project since access to these facilities would most likely be along major roads where grade 

separations are proposed. However, access to this location could be affected if visitors chose to use Old 

Lower Bay Road due to a new at-grade crossing of the Build Alternative. The facilities are not close enough 

to experience visual impairments from either construction or Project implementation.

Medical and Health Services

There is one medical facility located within the Study Area – the Hancock Medical Center, located within 

Port Bienville Industrial Park.

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, construction of the new rail line and/or 

improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area would not occur; no other known projects are planned 

within the Project Corridor. Under the No-Build Alternative, no effects, positive or negative, are expected 

to medical facilities or emergency services.

Build Alternative. All medical facilities and emergency services are outside of the Build Alternative 

corridor and would not be directly impacted. 

Visitors to the Hancock Medical Center – Family Health Clinic (Medical Services Port) located in the Port 

Bienville Industrial Complex could experience delays during construction; periodic delays at the at-grade 

crossings; or noise impairments from either construction or project implementation. Access to this medical 

facility would not be affected by any of the proposed grade-separated crossings at the major roads.

However, due to the location of this facility in the southern section of the Study Area, access could include 

utilizing Old Lower Bay Road, which has a proposed at-grade crossing. This could cause access issues to 

the facility as trains can cause delays. However, since there is no emergency department, this would be 

considered a minimal affect. The facility is not close enough to experience visual impairments from either 

construction or project implementation, especially due to a curve in the road and tree cover. 

Emergency service drivers could experience delays during construction and periodic delays at the at-grade 

crossings once the project is implemented. However, this would be dependent on the routes they travel to 

the various locations. Emergency service dispatchers and drivers may need to: be aware of alternate routes 

in case of trains blocking roadways; confirm they have accurate contact information for railway police; and 

maintain current maps translating road-rail intersections into railway location language. Up-to-date railroad 

crossing signals would be beneficial to emergency services and railroad safety coordination.99 Citizens, 

ambulances or first responders traveling to hospitals or ambulances could experience moderate effects from 

the proposed project except in areas where they would have to cross at-grade crossings, such as at Old 

Lower Bay Road and within the SSC acoustical buffer zone. Any citizens, ambulances or first responders 

coming from the south or east could potentially have to cross at-grade crossings, which could cause brief 

delays in reaching their destinations. Although there is an existing rail line in Nicholson, in the northern 

portion of the Study Area, it is an inactive line; therefore, there is also the potential for moderate effects 

due to new train traffic to the area and the potential delays this could cause.

Therefore, there would be moderate effects to emergency services under the Build Alternative for further 

information see Section 5.18 Transportation Impacts.

 

99 Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, http://www.tcrc295.com/TCRC_News_August_19_2010.htm, website visited 6.10.16
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-16

Emergency Services – Law Enforcement and Emergency Management

Law Enforcement

There is one law enforcement agency, the Hancock County Public Safety Complex, and three fire 

departments (West Hancock Volunteer FD in Pearlington, SSC Fire Department and Nicholson Volunteer 

FD) within the Study Area. None of these emergency services is within the limits of the Build alternative

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, no changes to law enforcement agencies or their 

services would be impacted. 

Build Alternative. Under the Build Alternative, there would be no direct impacts to any law enforcement 

buildings or facilities. It is not expected that access to the Hancock County Public Safety Complex would 

not be affected by the proposed project since access would most likely be along major roads where grade 

separations are proposed. However, employees and visitors to the complex could experience delays during 

construction and, for those using Old Lower Bay Road, periodic delays at the proposed at-grade crossings. 

The complex is approximately 2.0 miles from the Build Alternative’s crossing of U.S. 90; this would be a 

grade-separated crossing, which may be visible from a distance due to the flat terrain. Although the crossing

may be visible from the complex, this visual intrusion would be minor and would not affect its function. 

The complex is also far enough away from the Build Alternative that noise impairment is not likely from 

project construction or implementation.

Emergency Management

There are no emergency management agencies within the Study Area.

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no changes to any emergency 

management agency or their protocols.

Build Alternative. Because there are no emergency management agencies or facilities within the Study 

Area, there would be no impacts to these facilities. However, depending on how residents travel to the 

evacuation routes, minimal effects could be experienced at the at-grade crossing at Old Lower Bay Road. 

Although there are numerous proposed at-grade crossings within the SSC acoustical buffer zone, there are 

no inhabitants within that area. In the event of an emergency, employees at SSC would exit to SR 607 then 

travel south to I-10 or north to I-59, both of which are evacuation routes. The Build Alternative would cross 

both of these routes via grade-separated crossings, therefore, no impacts are expected in accessing these 

evacuation routes.

Overall, there would be minimal effects to emergency management agencies and their protocols under the 

Build Alternative.

5.6 Cultural Resources

No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, no archaeological or architectural resources would 

be impacted.

Build Alternative. No previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the Archaeological 

APE. A total of 24 linear archaeological sites were identified within the Archaeological APE (Table 5.3

and Figure 5.5). Thirteen of the 24 linear sites have been determined as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Eleven sites are considered as “unknown” for their eligibility determination. While sites with an NRHP 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-17

eligibility determination of “unknown” are present, MDAH/SHPO does agree that the construction of the 

Project would not have an adverse impact on these sites.

Table 5.3: Archaeological Sites

Site Number Context NRHP

Recommendation

22Ha171 Historic Unknown

22Ha181 Historic Unknown

22Ha766 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha767 Historic Unknown

22Ha768 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha769 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha770 Historic Unknown

22Ha771 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha772 Historic Unknown

22Ha773 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha774 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha775 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha776 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha777 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha778 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha789 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha780 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha781 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha782 Historic Unknown

22Ha783 (a – g) Historic Unknown

22Pr158 Historic Unknown

22Pr180 Historic Unknown

22Pr967 Historic Unknown

22Pr968 Historic Unknown
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-18

Figure 5.5: Cultural Resources APEs
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-19

No previously recorded architectural resources were within the Architectural APE. See Figure 5.5. Three 

newly recorded historic resources were identified during the architectural survey and are associated with 

NASA Turn (Site 22Ha767) (Table 5.4). Resource 1 is an approximately 145-foot-long open-deck timber 

trestle over Second Alligator Branch. Resource 2 is an approximately 145-foot-long two-span through plate 

girder bridge over I-59 Alligator Branch. Resource 3 is a prefabricated corrugated metal pipe culvert over 

Indian Camp Branch.

Table 5.4: Newly Documented Historic Resources

Site Number Type Location NRHP

Recommendation

Resource 1

(HS1)

Southern Railroad Bridge

over Second Alligator Branch

89° 40' 27.07" W

30° 28' 6.89" N Not Eligible

Resource 2

(HS2)

Southern Railroad Bridge

over I-59 and Alligator Branch

89° 41' 3.09" W

30° 28' 24.59" N Not Eligible

Resource 3

(HS3)

Southern Railroad Culvert over

Indian Camp Branch

89° 39' 56.05" W

30° 27' 34.00" N Not Eligible

All three were built by Southern Railway for transporting construction materials and other material to the 

Mississippi Test Operations site, now known as the John C. Stennis Space Center. Individually, none of the 

three resources rises to the level of historic significance as defined by the National Park Service. Although 

the resources were built to enable construction of the NRHP-listed Rocket Propulsion Test Complex, they 

are not associated with the mission of the complex. They provided necessary infrastructure and support for 

the complex, but were not specifically associated with complex’s mission or any historic themes or events. 

The structures are not historically or architecturally significant. Therefore, the Resources are recommended 

not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A-D (see Figure 5.6).

Therefore, construction of the Project would not affect any NRHP eligible architectural sites.

5.7 Federally Funded and Protected Public Facilities

5.7.1 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties 

There are four publicly owned park properties, McLeod Park, Whites Road Park, Pearlington Boat Launch 

and Curtis Johnson Boat Launch located within the Study Area.

No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would leave the existing Port Bienville Railroad in its

current configuration without a north-south connection to the NS mainline and does not include the 

construction of any new railroad features, it would have no impacts to either Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) 

properties. 

Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would have no impacts on Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) properties. 

McLeod Park would be located approximately 3.3 miles from the Build Alternative. The second property 

is Whites Road Park which is located approximately 5.3 miles from the Build Alternative. The third 

property is the Pearlington Boat Launch, located approximately 5.7 miles from the Build Alternative. The 

fourth property is Curtis Johnson Boat Launch located approximately 7.4 miles from the Build Alternative. 

Because of the distance of the project from the Section 4(f) resources, the Project would have no impact on 

these parks. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-20

Figure 5.6: Newly Recorded Architectural Sites
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-21

Additionally, two of these parks, McLeod Park and Whites Road Park are protected under Section 6(f);

because of the distance maintained between the Build Alternative and the parks, the Project would have no 

impact on any Section 6(f) properties. 

The Build Alternative would not affect the any Section 4(f)/6(f) protected properties.

5.8 Air Quality

No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would have no direct effect on air quality since the Project 

would not be built. It could potentially have impacts on future air quality or future climate change trends

since it would not provide improved transportation facilities for the area.

Build Alternative. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently issued guidance (Executive 

Office of the President, CEQ, Memorandum by Christina Goldfuss, CEQ, to Heads of Federal Departments 

and Agencies, August 1, 2016) recommending that NEPA documents address climate change by evaluating:

1) The effect of the Project in contributing to climate change, and

2) The effect of climate change on the Project. 

With respect to the first item, the proposed Project would be expected to decrease global greenhouse gas 

emissions, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), compared to the No-Build Alternative. This 

prediction is based on an assumption of freight hauling by truck, or by a longer rail route (another carrier) 

for the No-Build Alternative, compared to hauling it by train on a more direct route. Because trains are 

substantially more efficient than trucks on a gallon of fuel combusted per gross freight-ton-mile basis, and 

because CO2 emissions are directly proportional to fuel use, Project implementation would result in a 

decrease in greenhouse gas emissions for any freight that switches from truck to rail. For any freight that is 

diverted from a longer rail line to the proposed line, the shorter haul distance would also result in a decrease 

in greenhouse gas emissions. 

In a report from FRA, rail fuel efficiency varies from 156 to 512 ton-miles per gallon, while truck fuel 

efficiency ranges from 68 to 133 ton-miles per gallon.100

With respect to the second item, the effects of climate change on the Project, the issue of greatest concern 

would be the potential effect of climate change on sea level rise, and how that could impact the Project 

infrastructure, given the Project would be located at low elevations, not far from a coastal area. Current 

average rates of global sea level rise based on satellite measurements are approximately 1 foot per century 

(http://sealevel.colorado.edu/), and are about 0.5 feet per century based on actual tide gauge data 

(Houston and Dean, 2011). The tide gauge data indicate no substantial acceleration or deceleration in rate 

of sea level rise in recent decades (Houston and Dean 2011). Given the project would be built generally 

from 10 feet to about 40 feet above sea level, and the project infrastructure’s expected useful life is likely 

on the order of a 100 years or less, it is not expected that sea level rise, assuming it continues at the historical 

rate, would adversely affect the project infrastructure during its expected useful life.

 

100 A Final Report Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors (November 1, 2009), Accessed June 8, 

2017.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-22

5.9 Noise and Vibration

The majority of the Study Area is within the 125,000-acre SSC acoustical buffer zone, which mitigates 

noise impacts associated with the testing of various rocket engines at SSC. Habitation and building 

structures that could be inhabited are strictly prohibited within the buffer zone, which is enforced by SSC. 

Since no receptors are located within the SSC acoustical buffer zone, the noise and vibration assessment 

that was conducted applies only to the northern-most portion of the Study Area and the southern-most 

portion of the Study Area where the track alignment extends and terminates beyond the limits of the SSC 

buffer zone. 

No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts associated with noise and 

vibrations and noise and vibration would remain at existing levels. 

Build Alternative. A general assessment approach for noise and vibration impacts was conducted for the 

Build Alternative. Noise and vibration contours were overlaid upon digital aerial photographs, and impacted 

receptors were identified inside the contours. The following are the results from the general assessment. 

5.9.1 Estimated Noise Effects 

The results of the general assessment approach for noise impacts are shown in Figure 5.7 with noise 

contours overlaid upon digital aerial photographs, and impacted receptors identified inside the contours. 

Results of the general assessment determined the distance between the proposed rail line and the noise 

impact contour. This distance is also a function of existing noise levels; therefore, it varies. Noise contours 

narrow where background noise levels are louder (i.e. near highways, etc.). Table 5.5 summarizes the range 

of existing noise levels throughout the entire Study Area, and the range of noise impact contour distances 

associated with wayside noise. 

Table 5.5: Wayside Noise Impact Distances

FTA Noise 

Category

Existing Sound 

Level Ldn (dBA)

Distance to 

Moderate 

Impact (feet)

Distance to 

Severe Impact 

(feet)

2 35 161 70

2 40 77 34

2 45 53 19

2 50 43 17

2 55 32 13

2 60 22 9

2 65 14 6

2 70 8 4

2 75 7 2
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-23

Figure 5.7: General Assessment Noise Contours
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-24

Locomotive horn noise impact contours were determined using the FRA locomotive horn noise model. 

Table 5.6 presents the results of those calculations.

Table 5.6: Locomotive Horn Noise Impact Contour Dimensions

Impact Distances in Feet U.S. 11 (feet) Lower Bay Road (feet)

Impact Distance at Crossing 555 1,111

Severe Impact Distance at Crossing 290 703

Impact Distance at 1/2 Zone Length 429 882

Severe Impact Distance at 1/2 Zone Length 217 547

Zone Length 780 780

Results of applying the noise impact distances identified above to digital aerial photos indicate that 14 

receptors have potential to experience noise impacts, as shown in Table 5.7 and Figure 5.7. Receptor No. 

3 has no noise impact but has a vibration impact as discussed in Section 5.10.4.

Table 5.7: Noise Analysis Results

Receptor ID Type Land Use Category Noise Metric (dBA) Impact Magnitude

1 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Severe

2 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Severe

3 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn No impact

4 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

5 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

6 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

7 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

8 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

9 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

10 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

11 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

12 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

13 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

14 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

15 Residence Category 2 Outdoor Ldn Moderate

Twelve receptors have potential to experience moderate noise impacts and two receptors have potential to 

experience severe noise impacts. All noise impacts are at the northern‐most end of the Study Area, and are 

from the predicted horn noise at the U.S. 11 at‐grade crossing.

Eliminating locomotive horn use at the U.S. 11 at‐grade crossing would mitigate all severe noise impacts. 

However, it may not be cost‐effective to implement quiet zones and cease use of locomotive horns at public 

at‐grade crossings in the Study Area as a means to mitigate two severe noise impacts. The use of wayside 

horns may be explored as a mitigation measures. Other mitigation measures could include receiver‐based 

treatments such as building insulation programs or negotiated settlements. Building insulation programs 

refers to the acoustical insulation of the building, although sometimes thermal insulation can be utilized for 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-25

additional acoustical insulation. Other building insulation measures include air conditioning, improved 

seals, improved doors and windows, or relocating vents or doors to another side of the building. 

Receiver‐based noise mitigation measures may be more cost effective for the two severe noise impacts. 

Where moderate noise impacts are projected to occur, occupants may experience annoyance when trains 

are nearby. Noise mitigation measures are not recommended for locations where moderate noise impacts 

are projected to occur. FRA does not require mitigation for moderate noise impacts, because the magnitude 

of the change in noise levels or overall noise level is modest and not projected to substantially affect sleep 

or other activities.

5.9.2 Estimated Vibration Effects

Results of the general vibration assessment indicate that vibration impacts are projected to occur at a

distance of 169 feet from the rail line. Based on this distance, three receptors have the potential to experience 

vibration impacts, as shown in Table 5.8 and Figure 5.8. All vibration impacts are at the northern‐most 

end of the Study Area. Two of the receptors with vibration impacts are the same two receptors with severe

noise impacts (receptors 1 and 2). There are no ground-borne noise impact thresholds for Category 1 land 

uses in the Study Area because equipment sensitive to ground-borne vibration is generally not sensitive to 

ground-borne noise.

Table 5.8: Vibration Impacts

Receptor ID Type Land Use Category

1 Residence Category 2

2 Residence Category 2

3 Residence Category 2

Vibration mitigation is very difficult to implement on freight train projects due to the very heavy axle loads. 

Vibration mitigation measures available for transit train projects are not effective for freight trains. 

Operational restrictions such as reduced speed may reduce the magnitude of vibration experienced at 

receptors, but would increase the duration of vibration as well as other effects to noise exposure and road 

traffic delays. Track and wheel maintenance is considered a viable mitigation option for ground-borne 

vibration of freight trains; this can include regularly scheduled rail grinding, wheel truing programs, vehicle 

reconditioning programs, and use of wheel‐ flat detectors where feasible.

5.9.3 Noise and Vibration Summary

Noise and vibration associated with the proposed Project have the potential to affect residential and 

commercial properties adjacent to the rail line. Using methods published by the FTA/FRA, Project-related 

noise and vibration was evaluated to assess potential impacts. Analysis results indicate that Project-related 

noise and vibration has the potential to exceed impact thresholds, as defined by the FTA/FRA, at multiple 

receptors within the Study Area. It may not be cost effective to cease use of locomotive horns at public atgrade crossings in the Study Area. Therefore, noise mitigation measures, such as eliminating locomotive 

horn use at the U.S. 11 at-grade crossing, retrofitting buildings with air conditioning and improved storm 

doors and windows, or settlements, would be considered where severe noise impacts are projected to occur 

and would be finalized prior to the Final Environmental Impacts Statement (FEIS). The future Project 

Sponsor would be responsible for implementation of noise mitigation measures. There are no practical 

means of mitigating ground-borne vibration impact. See the Noise and Vibration Report, January 2017

Appendix D.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-26

Figure 5.8: General Assessment Vibration Contours
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-27

5.10 Geological Resources

No-Build Alternative. Since the No-Build Alternative would leave the existing Port Bienville Railroad in 

its current configuration without a north-south connection to the NS rail and does not include the 

construction of any new railroad features, it would have no impacts to geological resources within the area.

Build Alternative. The alignment is located within the coastal plain deposits of Pearl River and Hancock 

Counties, Mississippi. The deposits are noted as Holocene and a part of the late Quaternary period, ranging 

in age between 0.01 Ma to present. Near surface soils range from Coarse Sands and gravels to fine grained 

clay soils. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey, near surface soils 

are predominately fine grained soils with low plasticity and low organic content. Soils in the area are noted 

to have a medium to high risk of corrosion to concrete and a high risk of corrosion to steel, as are common 

in coastal areas. The northern section of the alignment, from Nicholson to Interstate 10 is noted to be 

moderately suitable for roadways and structures, whereas the section south of Interstate 10 is noted to be 

poorly suitable given the wetlands and undisturbed wooded areas. Mean soil permeability in the area is 

estimated between 0.5 and 2.0 inches per hour, which represents relatively permeable, free-draining soils. 

The alignment crosses several creeks and streams as well as small tributaries. Soils near these water features 

would likely contain more organic material as well as fine-grained soils. These soils have a moderate to 

high compressibility and are difficult to work with during construction.

Deep coastal deposits are generally deep and relatively compressible. The alignment would generally vary 

from near grade to heights on the order of 5 feet except at grade crossings where fill height would be greater. 

Soil impacts on constructability could be handled by preloading (adding additional fill to account for 

settlement) and deep foundations for bridge structures. Long term settlement is a concern throughout the 

area but would be investigated during design to limit the degradation of the embankment and railway 

alignment.

5.11 Wetlands

5.11.1 Impacts to Wetlands, Streams, and Other Water Bodies

No-Build Alternative. Since the No-Build Alternative would leave the existing Port Bienville Railroad in 

its current configuration without a north-south connection to the NS rail and does not include the 

construction of any new railroad features, it would have no impacts to wetlands, streams, and other 

waterbodies.

Build Alternative. The construction of the Build Alternative would impact wetlands, streams, and other 

waters types located within the construction limits of the proposed project. The proposed right-of-way for 

the project has been determined to be 100 feet wide. During the design phase, construction limits would be 

defined; construction limits are estimated to be approximately 75 feet wide, which would further reduce 

wetland impacts. Impacts discussed in this section are based off a 100 feet wide corridor. Both temporary 

and permanent impacts would occur in order to construct the proposed Project (see Figure 5.9: Wetland 

Index Map and Wetland Map Book in Appendix E).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-28

Figure 5.9: Wetland Index Map

Wetland and stream map book associated with index map is in Appendix E
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-29

The section of the rail line from Nicholson to just past Texas Flat Road constructed would involve

construction on the existing NS rail alignment. Construction activities for this section of the project would 

be limited to rail and tie replacement and surface and lining the track. It is anticipated that the timber trestle 

over Alligator Branch would be replaced. It is anticipated the impacts to wetlands and streams in this area 

would be considered temporary impacts. The remainder of the proposed project would be on new location 

requiring permanent impacts to the resources within this area. 

In developing the Build Alternative, considerable time was taken to avoid waters of the U.S., including 

wetlands, during the planning and preliminary design process. Impacts to wetlands and other waters have 

been minimized by modifying the alignment to the extent practicable. All impacts to waters of the U.S., 

including wetlands, and mitigation assessments identified within this section are considered preliminary 

and have been calculated for planning purposes which are subject to USACE regulatory approval.

As shown in Table 5.9, approximately 173.59 acres of wetlands and other waters, and approximately 2,482

linear feet of streams would be impacted by the new railroad and associated infrastructure. 

Table 5.9: Resources Potentially Impacted by the Proposed Project -

Rehabilitation of Existing NS RR and Construction of New Rail

Resource Type

Linear Feet 

within 100’ 

Right-of-way

Acreage 

within 100’ 

Right-of-Way

Temporary 

Impacts 

within 100’ 

Existing Rail 

Right-of-way

Temporary 

Impacts due to 

Bridging 

(New Location 

Section)

Total 

Temporary 

Impacts

STREAM IMPACTS

Intermittent 1,669 _ 1669 _ 1669

Perennial 741 _ 225 284 509

Ephemeral 46 _ 46 _ 46

Stream Total (LF) 2,482 _ 1,940 397 2,224

WETLAND IMPACTS

Emergent (PEM) - 9.10 0.33 _ 0.33

Bottomland Hardwood (PFO) _ 37.08 0.23 _ 0.23

Pine Savannah (PFO) _ 108.90 0.09 _ 0.09

Scrub-Shrub (PSS) _ 16.50 0.63 _ 0.63

Wetland Total (Acres) _ 171.58 1.28 _ 1.28

OTHER IMPACTS

Open water _ 1.83 0.22 _ 0.22

Riverine _ 0.18 0.07 0.11 0.18

Other Total (Acres) _ 2.01 0.29 0.11 0.40

Total 2,482 173.59 1.57 0.11

Quantities are based on wetland delineation for the build alternative

The majority of the wetlands observed within the Survey Corridor have been altered by silviculture 

practices, development, and transmission line and pipeline right-of-way. Although these wetlands are not 

of the highest quality due to anthropogenic disturbances, they still provide significant filtration and flood 

mitigation functions. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-30

Impacts from the proposed Project have been evaluated as either temporary or permanent. The type of 

impact (temporary vs. permanent) varies based on the location along the rail alignment. As described above, 

the Project from Nicholson to Texas Flat Road would be constructed on the existing rail line. Since the 

existing rail bed would be used, impacts would be considered as temporary since construction activities 

would only require the rehabilitation of the existing NS railroad line. Ballast and rail ties would be replaced, 

and new track constructed. It is anticipated that the timber trestle over Alligator Branch would be replaced;

other culvert structures along this section are not anticipated to be replaced or modified but a thorough 

inspection of these structures would be conducted during design. Other activities could include the 

movement of equipment, staging and stockpile areas, and other ground disturbance. 

Approximately 1,940 linear feet of stream impacts are located along the existing NS rail line, where the 

existing rail bed would be used. This is approximately 75 percent of the total stream footage within the 

proposed right-of-way for the Project. These streams could be temporarily impacted during the 

rehabilitation of the existing rail line but would not be permanently impacted. A total of 1.28 acres (along 

the existing line) of wetland impacts would also be considered temporary.

The remainder of the rail line from just past Texas Flat Road to the connection into the existing PBRR at 

the southern terminus of the Project would be constructed on new location. Impacts to wetlands and streams 

within the required right-of-way would occur resulting in the permanent conversion of wetlands or aquatic 

habitat to uplands. Bridge structures are proposed over two named streams (Turtle Skin Creek and Bayou 

LaCroix) and a culvert on the remaining named stream (Wolf Branch Creek). This would further reduce 

the remaining permanent stream impacts by approximately 28 linear feet. Additional impacts could occur 

near road crossing and drainage structures to accommodate for those features. 

A detailed hydrology study has not be completed for the proposed Project. However, it appears that the 

majority of the hydrologic conditions of this area are atributed to sheet flow. During coordination with 

resource agencies, it was suggested that optimally this type of hydrology should be maintained, which could 

be accomplished by using stabilizer pipes and leveler spreader as shown in Figure 5.10.

The future Project Sponsor would be responsible for implementation of mitigation measures for 

wetlands/waters of the U.S. Best management practices would be implemented by the contractor to avoid 

and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams were practicable. Surface matting is an option that would 

reduce soil disturbance, and silt fencing where construction activities occur adjacent to streams. Permanent 

impacts or conversion to uplands would be confined to the surface area occupied by the new rail 

embankment. Any impacts directly adjacent to the new embankment would be considered temporary if 

restored to pre-construction elevations and with the re-establishment of native vegetation. Postconstruction, temporary impact areas would be restored to pre-construction elevation by the contractor, and 

native vegetation should be able to re-establish quickly. No conversion of wetlands or net loss of habitat is 

anticipated from the rehabilitation/construction of the existing portion of the Project.

Construction of the proposed Project would require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) to authorize impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The compensatory mitigation 

requirements under Section 404 would provide for the replacement of the functions of wetlands and water 

impacted by the proposed Project and would be provided by the future Project sponsor. Because the 

proposed Project would not appreciably diminish the availability of functional wetlands and other waters 

within the proposed right-of-way, there would be no fragmentation of wetland vegetative communities and; 

therefore, short-term and long-term impacts would be localized and minor.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-31

Figure 5.10: Stabilizer Pipes and Leveler Spreader

5.11.2 Coastal Zone Management

The Study Area includes two coastal zone counties—Pearl River and Hancock Counties—and would need 

a coastal zone “federal consistency” determination101. Federal consistency ensures that federal actions that 

are reasonably likely to affect any coastal use or resources will be consistent with the enforceable policies 

of a coastal state’s federally approved coastal management program.

Implementation of the Mississippi Coastal Program (MCP) is the primary responsibility of the Office of 

Coastal Resources, which is part of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR).102 The 

MCP was legislatively mandated in Section 57-15-6 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 and approved by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the provisions of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) of 1972.

The Coastal Zone Consistency determination would be coordinated with the MDMR via distribution of the 

Draft EIS. Final coordination would be completed prior to the signing of the Record of Decision. The 

MDMR will review the proposed Project based upon the provisions of the MCP and Section 307 of the 

 

101 https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/consistency/ accessed 9/25/17

102 www.dmr.ms.gov/index.php/coastal-resources-management, accessed on 8/16/16
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-32

CZMA of 1972, as amended, to determine if the activities are consistent to the maximum extent practicable 

with the MCP. 

The Project is expected to receive concurrence from MDMR that it is consistent with the Coastal Zone 

Management Program for the following reasons: 

▪ The proposed rail line has a coastal-dependent use given its connection to the Port Bienville 

Industrial Park.

▪ The proposed rail line helps locate new commercial and industrial development in, or adjacent to, 

existing developed areas.

▪ The proposed north/south rail connection would provide an option to move rail equipment, 

industrial equipment, materials, and other critical components out of harm’s way to the NS Railroad 

in advance of tropical storm surges, thereby improving coastal resiliency and preventing potential 

hazardous conditions within the coastal zone. 

Project impacts to wetlands within the coastal zone are unavoidable given the distribution of wetland areas 

throughout the Study Area (see Figure 5.9: Wetland Index Map and wetland map book in Appendix E

and Draft Wetland and Threatened and Endangered Species Report, December 2016 Appendix C). 

Wetlands and stream impacts would be mitigated as part of the 404/401 permitting process.

5.12 Floodplains

5.12.1 Floodplain and Floodway 

No-Build Alternative. Since the No-Build Alternative would leave the existing PBRR in its current 

configuration without a north-south connection to the NS rail line and does not include the construction of 

any new railroad features, it would not impact floodways or the floodplain.

Build Alternative. Executive Order 11988 requires that any practicable alternatives to locating in the 

floodplain be identified and evaluated, including alternative sites outside of the floodplain. As shown in 

Figure 5.11 there are no alternative routes that would connect the Port Bienville Railroad to the existing 

NS rail that would avoid the floodplain, so there are no practicable Build Alternatives to locating the Project

outside the floodplain.

Approximately 96.74 acres of Project right-of-way (existing and new right-of-way) would be within the 

100-year floodplain (Zones A and AE) as shown in Figure 5.11 and Table 5.10. The existing NS right-ofway extends 5.4 miles from Nicholson, Mississippi to south of Texas Flat Road where the proposed rail 

alignment departs the existing NS spur and new construction begins. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-33

Figure 5.11: Floodplain Impacts
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-34

Table 5.10: Floodplain Impacts

Segment

Zones A and AE

100-Year Floodplain

(acres)

Zone X

500-Year Floodplain 

(acres)

Existing NS Rail Right-of-way 0.61 0.27

Proposed New Rail Right-of-way 96.13 63.53

Estimated Floodplain Impacts 96.74 63.8

Potential impacts to floodplains would include filling, grading, new bridges and culverts, and other 

activities. The Project would be designed to include features, such as bridges and culverts, so that it would 

not increase flood heights and could achieve “no-rise certification.” 

The proposed rail alignment would not cross any regulatory floodways. For streams and other watercourses 

where FEMA has provided BFEs, but no floodway has been designated, a review of floodplain development 

must be conducted by the local floodplain management on a case-by-case basis to ensure that increases in 

water surface elevations do not occur, or identify the need to adopt a floodway if adequate information is 

available. 

Floodplain impacts typically require coordination and approval from FEMA and the local floodplain 

administrator(s), which includes Hancock and Pearl River Counties. During the permitting process, the 

Project sponsor would need to contact FEMA and Hancock and Pearl River Counties for permit and review 

requirements for the Project.

5.13 Water Resources

5.13.1 Natural Ecology Systems 

The following sections describe the impacts to hydrology, terrain, vegetation, flora and fauna communities 

and wetland and other waters based on recent field surveys and the proposed Project right-of-way limits.

Surface Water

No-Build Alternative. Since the No-Build Alternative would leave the existing Port Bienville Railroad in 

its current configuration without a north-south connection to the NS rail line and does not include the 

construction of any new railroad features, it would have no impacts to surface water. No changes to the 

overall Study Area water quality would be expected. Impaired water bodies within the Study Area would 

continue to be impaired unless TMDLs and restoration plans are implemented in the future.

Build Alternative. Impacts to surface water are classified as being either short-term, from construction, or 

long-term from operation. Short-term construction impacts related to earth moving activities such as 

grading and clearing, can result in discharge of sediment and chemicals into surface waters. Excessive 

sediment contamination can lead to aquatic habitat degradation, including a reduction in dissolved oxygen 

and an increase in turbidity, and increases in nutrients, heavy metals and chemicals. These impacts can be 

reduced and mitigated through the careful implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan. 

MDOT is the largest administrator of construction projects in Mississippi and has had a Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in place since October 1992. This plan was approved by the MDEQ 

and is routinely used successfully throughout the state on MDOT construction projects.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-35

Long-term effects from surface water typically result from stormwater runoff as it flows or drains away 

from a project’s right-of-way. Stormwater runoff can carry harmful contaminants from rail operations and 

engine wear and tear. These impacts can be reduced or mitigated by constructing stormwater retention and 

detention ponds within the right-of-way and by minimizing the use of impervious surfaces. These 

minimization efforts will be further explored during the design phase. Because railroad projects typically 

require less right-of-way than other linear transportation projects, there is a greater amount of pervious 

surface area adjacent to the rail to allow for stormwater soil infiltration before reaching surface waters. 

Minimal impacts to surface water are anticipated during and following construction. 

Hydraulic studies have not been completed at this stage of the Project and final mitigation measures cannot 

be determined until further project development.

Water Quality

The CWA is the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters. It prohibits any 

discharge of fill or dredged material into waters regulated by the USACE, unless authorized by a permit. 

To regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands,

Section 404 of the CWA establishes a permit program, managed by the USACE.

A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharges into waters of the U.S. 

is required under Section 402 of the CWA.

The discharge of stormwater from construction sites must comply with the conditions of an NPDES permit 

under the CWA. A statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction 

Activity has been developed for the state of Mississippi. In accordance with the General Permit, the 

disturbance of more than 1 acre of soil requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan that identifies site management activities to be carried out during construction. 

These activities generally include construction of stormwater best management practices (BMPs), erosion 

and sedimentation controls, dewatering (nuisance water removal), runoff controls, and construction 

equipment maintenance.

In accordance with Section 401 of the CWA, any activities that would result in a discharge to waters of the 

U. S. must obtain a state certification proving the discharge complies with other requirements of the CWA. 

MDEQ oversees the certification program in Mississippi.

No-Build Alternative. No changes to overall Study Area water quality would be expected. Impaired water 

bodies within the Study Area would continue to be impaired unless TMDLs and restoration plans are 

implemented in the future. 

Build Alternative. The Build Alternative lies within an area where many streams are already disturbed by 

agricultural land use. Section 303[d] of the CWA requires each state to provide a list of impaired waters 

that do not meet or are expected not to meet state water quality standards as defined by that section. Of the 

three impaired water bodies in the Study Area, the only one within the proposed Project right-of-way is 

Turtle Skin Creek, which is a tributary of the Pearl River. The proposed rail alignment crosses Turtle Skin 

Creek south of Texas Flat Road. Due to heavy rainfall in March 2016, the creek was observed outside of 

its banks and no clear channel could be observed at the time. Based upon aerial imagery on an adjacent 

pipeline corridor, it is estimated the creek is typically less than 10 feet wide. The proposed rail alignment 

would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to Turtle Skin Creek as well as other water bodies and 

would not hinder any MDEQ restoration plans for Turtle Skin Creek. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-36

No permanent impacts to water quality are anticipated as a result of the Build Alternative. Railroads 

typically do not contribute much to surface water or groundwater contamination. Localized water quality 

could be temporarily affected during construction, but use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) would 

minimize potential water quality impacts. The MDOT would consult with the appropriate federal and state 

resource and regulatory agencies to identify measures to minimize these impacts. 

A Section 401 Permit (Water Quality Certification) would be required from the MDEQ’s Environmental 

Permits Division, Office of Pollution Control prior to construction. Any water quality impacts would be 

mitigated as part of the 404/401 permit process.

Many stream crossings are currently traversed with a bridge or culvert structure along the existing rail line. 

Similar structures are proposed along the new rail alignment. New crossings would require a USACE 404 

permit.

Construction of the Build Alternative would result in short term impacts to hydrology within the limits of 

the right-of-way as a result of minor discharge of sediment from disturbance of ground cover, excavation, 

and grading of the railroad embankment. A comprehensive SWPPP with BMPs to protect water quality 

(e.g., silt fence, re-vegetation) would likely mitigate these impacts. Additionally, these measures would also 

likely fulfill the requirements of the Section 401 Certification.

Bridges were considered as much as possible in development of the Build Alternative. Where culverts or 

drainage pipes are used, they would be designed with their inverts below the normal stream beds. This 

design would avoid scouring downstream from the structure and provide better aquatic habitat. During 

construction activities, aquatic organisms may be displaced as a result of construction activities, but these 

organisms are expected to return once activities cease. Minimal impacts to water quality are anticipated 

during and following construction. 

Groundwater

No-Build Alternative. Since the No-Build Alternative would leave the existing Port Bienville Railroad in 

its current configuration without a north-south connection to the NS mainline and does not include the 

construction of any new railroad features, it would have no impacts to ground water wells or aquifers.

Build Alternative. The construction of the proposed Project lies within the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer 

System, Graham Ferry and Pascagoula Aquifers. Within this shallow aquifer system, railroad 

infrastructure, including bridge bents, may come into contact with the underlying groundwater; however,

industry standard construction methods would minimize any potential contamination effects. Bridge 

construction materials likely to be used, such as steel H-piles or reinforced concrete drilled shafts, are nonreactive with groundwater and contain no additives that would be hazardous or detrimental to groundwater 

quality. During construction, the ground would be temporarily disturbed causing some localized, temporary 

groundwater effects. Groundwater dewatering may be required during construction in certain locations, 

depending on the types of bridge foundations used and the construction means and methods. If dewatering 

is required, discharge of water would be conducted in accordance with applicable requirements. Long-term 

effects to groundwater quality as the result of construction of the Project would be negligible.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-37

Based on GIS data,

103 no water wells are located within 100 feet of the proposed track centerline. Therefore, 

no impacts to water wells are anticipated.

5.13.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenic Streams

One 21-mile segment of Black Creek from Fairley Bridge Landing upstream to Moody’s Landing has been 

designated as a Wild and Scenic River in the state of Mississippi. The designated segment of Black Creek 

is located outside of the Study Area, near Wiggins, Mississippi. Therefore, no impact from the Project is 

anticipated. 

The Mississippi Statewide Scenic Stream Stewardship Program has designated 11 stream/river segments 

as a Scenic Stream in the state of Mississippi. Of the 11 streams designated, only the segment of Wolf River 

crosses into Pearl River and Hancock Counties. However, this designated segment is located outside of the 

Study Area. Therefore, no impact to State Scenic Streams is anticipated from the Project. 

5.14 Habitat and Wildlife

5.14.1 Vegetation and Floral/Faunal Communities

No-Build Alternative. Since the No-Build Alternative would leave the existing Port Bienville Railroad in 

its current configuration without a north-south connection to the NS rail and does not include the 

construction of any new railroad features, it would have no impacts to vegetation and floral/faunal 

communities.

Build Alternative. The most likely impacts to the terrestrial flora and fauna within the proposed right-ofway would be from construction and clearing activities for the new rail. Construction activities would result 

in the loss of wildlife habitat within the right-of-way limits, but the right-of-way corridor would be narrow 

and the total acreage of habitat loss would be relatively small in relation to the surrounding area/landscape. 

The new rail corridor is not anticipated to create a barrier to wildlife movement. During final design the 

Project would be evaluated to see if incorporating specific design features would enhance wildlife crossings 

along the Project.

Effects to wildlife would occur during vegetation removal and disturbance during construction. Grading 

and construction of the new track would permanently convert wetland habitat within the right-of-way and 

clearing of pine and hardwood trees would result in loss of habitat for birds, squirrels, and other animals of 

the area. Since wildlife animals are mobile, they have the capability to avoid areas of construction and travel 

to other undisturbed areas surrounding the corridor. Plant communities disturbed or removed within the 

right-of-way would result in minimal loss of habitat. Flow through streams within the Survey Corridor

would be maintained during construction, so no impacts to aquatic species are anticipated during or after 

construction.

Existing vegetation communities provide habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. Construction activities 

could cause temporary displacement or stress in local wildlife. Potential effects on wildlife would be shortterm because construction disturbance would be temporary. 

The future Project Sponsor would be responsible for implementation of minimization and mitigation 

measures for vegetation and wildlife. Mitigation measures and restoration of disturbed areas would reduce 

 

103 Source: MARIS; Layer Names: USGS_Wells09 and OGB_wells2013
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-38

effects to wildlife. BMPs would be used to the extent practicable to further reduce the impact to wildlife 

and habitat. Vegetation clearing for construction activities would be planned outside of the migratory bird 

breeding season. In addition, areas disturbed for stockpiling materials or equipment staging yards would be 

placed in uplands where possible and restored to pre-construction elevations and re-seeded with native 

species to re-establish the vegetation community. During construction, sediment run-off would be 

controlled near streams through the use of silt fencing and other methods to reduce turbidity and any 

potential effects to aquatic species.

5.14.2 Effects on Federally-Listed Species

Several of the federally-listed and candidate species would not occur in or near the Study Area due to lack 

of habitat. These species that have no known occurrences include the pearl darter (Percina aurora), Atlantic 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), smalltooth sawfish (Percina aurora), gopher tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus), ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), 

leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Hawksbill sea turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricate), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and 

red knot (Calidris canutus ruga). These federally listed species have been dismissed from further discussion 

since they are not likely to occur within the study area. However, coordination with USFWS is ongoing and 

final determinations would require their concurrence. 

The following seven federally listed species may occur in or near the Study Area and are listed in Table 

5.11. However, it has been recommended in the Draft Wetlands and Threatened and Endangered Species 

Report that the proposed Project would have no effect on the Alabama (=inflated) heelsplitter (Potamilus 

inflatus) and the Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi). Also, it was determined that the 

proposed Project may effect but is not likely to adversely affect the Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes 

louisianensis), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus 

lodingi), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), and the Florida 

panther (Puma concolor coryi). The Draft Wetland and Threatened and Endangered Species Report is 

appended to the DEIS as Appendix C.

Table 5.11: Effects on Listed Federal Species with

Potential Suitable Habitat in the Survey Corridor

Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal 

Status1

State 

Status1

Potential Habitat 

Present?

Anticipated Effects 

Determination2

FEDERAL AND/OR STATE-LISTED SPECIES

Alabama (=inflated) heelsplitter

Potamilus inflatus T E Yes No effect

Louisiana quillwort

Isoetes louisianensis E - Yes May affect; not likely to adversely affect

Eastern indigo snake

Drymarchon couperi T E Yes May affect; not likely to adversely affect

Black pine snake

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi T E Yes No effect

Red-cockaded woodpecker

Picoides borealis E E Yes May affect; not likely to adversely affect

Wood stork

Mycteria americana T E Yes May affect; not likely to adversely affect

Florida panther 

Concolor coryi E E Yes May affect; not likely to adversely affect

1 E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate species; DL = Delisted; - = not listed

2 Federal species = No effect or May affect; Not likely to adversely affect
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-39

All species descriptions, preferred habitat, and location of known occurrences are summarized from the 

IPaC database (Federal species) and from a report entitled Endangered Species of Mississippi104.

Alabama Heelsplitter (Threatened). The inflated heelsplitter has an oval, compressed to moderately 

inflated, thin shell. The valves may gape anteriorly. The umbos are low, and a prominent posterior wing is 

present that may extend anterior to the beak in young individuals. The shell is brown to black and may have 

green rays in young individuals.105

The preferred habitat of this species is soft, stable substrates in slow to moderate currents. It has been found 

in sand, mud, silt and sandy gravel, but not in large gravel or armored gravel. It is usually collected on the 

protected side of bars and may occur in depths over 20 feet. The occurrence of this species in silt may not 

indicate that the life cycle can be successful in that substrate. Adult mussels may survive limited amounts 

of silt where juveniles would suffocate. The heelsplitter has been known to use the freshwater drum as a 

suitable host for its eggs; therefore, it could potentially be found in any river system the drum inhabits. 

During field reconnaissance, the largest stream encountered was Bayou LeCroix, an outlet stream of the 

Bay St. Louis. The segment of Bayou LeCroix located within the Build Alternative Corridor is relatively 

narrow, but does have slow to moderate currents and likely a silty/clay substrate. No sand bars are present 

in this segment and the depth of Bayou LeCroix is less than 20 feet. Although freshwater drum species 

(host) may be present in Bayou LeCroix, the heelsplitter has not been known to occur in this stream 

system/area. Recently, this species has only been collected at two locations on the Pearl River in Mississippi 

and in the West Pearl River in Louisiana. It still occurs in the Amite River in Louisiana and parts of the 

Tombigbee River drainage in Mississippi.106 It is anticipated that a finding of no effect would be made for 

the Alabama (=inflated) Heelsplitter.

Louisiana Quillwort. The Louisiana quillwort is a small, semi-aquatic, facultative evergreen plant with 

spirally-arranged leaves (sporophylls) arising from a globose, two-lobed corm. The pliant, hollow leaves 

are transversely septate and measure 0.12 inch wide and up to 16.0 inches long. These little plants are 

valuable indicators of stream health. To date, 8 populations occur in Louisiana, 3 populations in Alabama, 

and 30 populations in Mississippi. It was not until 1996 that Louisiana quillwort plants were verified in 

Mississippi. Most Mississippi colonies of quillwort are found in the DeSoto Ranger District of the DeSoto 

National Forest (Forrest, Perry, Stone, Harrison, and Jackson counties) with a smaller cluster of sites in 

North-Central Hancock County. One colony is known from Pearl River County.

Louisiana quillworts grow in mineral soil, usually light grey in color, in bottomlands that are periodically 

washed free of leaves and debris. Overstory trees are typically laurel oak, red maple, tuliptree, and swamp 

tupelo. Pine trees are only occasionally observed, but they may have been more common, as large old pine 

stumps are frequently observed around quillwort populations. 

The Louisiana quillwort was listed as an endangered species by the USFWS in 1992 before populations 

were discovered in Mississippi. Although the majority of known Mississippi colonies are found on public 

land, various land uses, including certain silviculture activities, military training, and some recreational 

 

104 Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2014. Endangered Species of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.

105 U.S Fisht & Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation Online System, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=F01O, 

Accessed 10-06-2017

106 Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2014. Endangered Species of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-40

activities, as well as natural alterations arising from impoundment of streams, may contribute to adverse 

impacts on quillwort habitat. Activities which negatively affect hydrology, water quality, and/or substrate 

stability could threaten population persistence in its habitat. 

Suitable habitat for the quillwort is present within the Survey Corridor; however, the health of the stream 

segments surveyed were in decline due to silviculture practices, pollution, and debris. Overhead canopy of 

the streams were primary pine and hardwoods, though not specifically the preferred hardwood canopy 

species of the quillwort. It is unlikely the quillwort inhabits these streams, and no quillwort was observed 

during field observations. It is anticipated that a finding of may affect, not likely to adversely affect will be 

made for the Louisiana Quillwort.

Eastern Indigo Snake. The eastern indigo snake is a non-venomous, black snake. It is the longest snake 

native to the United States, ranging in size from 60 to 84 inches, and is entirely shiny bluish-black color, 

including the belly. The chin and sides of the head are usually colored reddish or orange-brown. Juvenile 

indigo snakes look very similar to adults, but have much more red on their heads. Indigo snakes are sexually 

dimorphic, with males growing to larger lengths than females.

Eastern indigo snakes are restricted to Florida and southern areas of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. 

Until relatively recently, all indigo snakes in the U.S. were considered to be the same species, D. corais.

In the southeast, indigo snakes are restricted to areas with dry sand ridges and pine-oak sandhills (uplands), 

dominated by pines (primarily longleaf) and oaks. Gopher tortoises usually inhabit the areas where the 

eastern indigo snake is found. These snakes use gopher tortoise burrows as shelter during the winter and 

during the warmer months for nesting and refuge from intense summer heat. During the active season, 

indigo snakes may move long distances and often forage along wetland margins.

Indigo snakes are active strictly by day. During the summer they prefer wetland edges where prey is 

abundant, but move to drier habitats in the winter. Indigo snakes breed in the winter and are more active in 

cold weather than most other snakes. When cornered, they may flatten their heads, hiss and vibrate their 

tails, which produces a rattling sound. Despite these intimidating acts, the indigo snake rarely bites. Indigo 

snakes regularly feed on mammals, birds, frogs and other snakes, including rattlesnakes and cottonmouths. 

Also, these snakes will occasionally feed on young gopher tortoises.

In the past, periodic growing season fires created excellent upland habitat for the gopher tortoise, the 

presence of which is important to the Indigo snake in Mississippi. In recent years, fires have been excluded 

from formerly suitable habitat and burning is primarily performed in the dormant season; this sort of 

burning does not effectively control proliferation of hardwoods and brush. In parts of its range, this species 

has been adversely affected by the “gassing” of gopher tortoise burrows, a practice illegal in Mississippi. 

The last specimen actually collected in Mississippi was taken in 1939, and there have been no verified 

observations of natural populations of the Indigo snake in Mississippi since the 1950s.107

Suitable habitat exists for the eastern indigo snake occurring in the Survey Corridor, particularly along 

wetland edges and in the summer months. They usually prefer pine oak sandhills usually inhabited by 

gopher tortoises. The eastern indigo snake uses the gopher tortoises’ burrows for shelter during winter. Due 

to the low probability of gopher tortoises to inhabit the Survey Corridor, the eastern indigo snake may be 

 

107 Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2014. Endangered Species of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-41

restricted to the wetland areas where prey is abundant. However, due to lack of observation of the species 

in Mississippi since the 1950s, it may be extirpated. It is anticipated that a finding of may affect, but is not 

likely to adversely affect the eastern indigo snake.

Black Pine Snake. The black pine snake is a large dark brown to black snake that prefers to inhabit 

mature, longleaf pine forests, similar to the gopher tortoise, with sandy soil, an open canopy, 

moderately fire-suppressed midstory and a thick grassy understory. Studies have shown that the 

black pine snake is usually found in rotting pine stumps and are located underground two-thirds of 

the time. It is considered critically imperiled and in decline along with its preferred habitat of longleaf 

pine forests due to timbering and conversion to agriculture.

Although the black pine snake has been known to occur in 14 counties within southern Mississippi, 

(excluding Hancock County) the species is now extremely rare over most of the historic range and has been 

extirpated from Louisiana and Lauderdale County, Mississippi. It is still relatively common within DeSoto 

National Forest in Mississippi. A recent study commissioned by USFWS found that 31 percent of historical 

black pine snake population segments have been extirpated and that another 26 percent are in serious 

jeopardy; the main reason for the decline being habitat destruction and fragmentation. In recent years, fires 

(controlled burning)has been excluded from some formerly suitable habitats in Mississippi, resulting in a 

dense understory of hardwoods and shrubs that prevent sunlight from reaching the forest floor, shading out 

food sources of the black pine snake.

The majority of the Survey Corridor contains saturated (poorly drained) soil conditions and dense canopy. 

Open areas of the Survey Corridor are primarily pasture or transmission corridors with emergent wetlands. 

The black pine snake does have the potential to occur in the few upland areas of the Survey Corridor with 

sandy soil sand stands of long leaf pine and may have a broader range in during the dry season. Literature 

also states that the black pine snake may be found within stream or river corridors and near pitcher plant 

bogs, which were present within the Survey Corridor. While suitable habitat is present for the black pine 

snake, it is anticipated that a finding of may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect will be made for the 

Black Pine Snake. 

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. About the size of the common cardinal, the red-cockaded woodpecker is 

approximately 7 inches long, with a wingspan of about 15 inches. Its back is barred with black and white 

horizontal stripes. The red-cockaded woodpecker's most distinguishing feature is a black cap and nape that 

encircle large white cheek patches. Rarely visible, except perhaps during the breeding season and periods 

of territorial defense, the male has a small red streak on each side of its black cap called a cockade, hence 

its name. Female red-cockaded woodpeckers lack the red cockade. Juvenile males have a red 'patch' in the 

center of their black crown. This patch disappears during the fall of their first year at which time their 'redcockades' appear. 

The diet of red-cockaded woodpeckers consists mostly of insects in the egg, larvae, and adult stages. These 

include beetles, ants, roaches, spiders and other insects found in or on pine trees. Fruits and seeds make up 

a small portion of the overall diet. Large, older trees are preferred for foraging. In general, males forage on 

the limbs and upper trunk while females forage on the trunk below the crown. 

The red-cockaded woodpecker makes its home in mature pine forests (60+ years old). Longleaf pines are 

most commonly preferred, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. While other woodpeckers 

bore out cavities in dead trees where the wood is rotten and soft, the red-cockaded woodpecker is the only 

one that excavates cavities exclusively in living pine trees. Cavities are excavated in mature pines, generally 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-42

over 80 years old. The older pines favored by the red-cockaded woodpecker often suffer from a fungus 

called red heart disease, which attacks the center of the trunk, causing the inner wood, the heartwood, to 

become soft. Cavity excavation takes from one to six years.

In Mississippi, the red-cockaded woodpecker mainly occurs in the southern two-thirds of the state. It has 

not been found in the Delta and only sporadically occurs in northern counties. Although listed and protected 

in Hancock County, Mississippi, given the coastal region surrounding the Survey Corridor, the current land 

use and silviculture practices, and lack of mature undisturbed pine stands (longleaf and slash pine) make it 

unlikely that the red-cockaded woodpecker would nest within the Survey Corridor. While some suitable 

foraging habitat may be present within the Survey Corridor, this habitat is unlikely to be used by red 

cockaded woodpecker because of the low probability of suitable nesting habitat occurring within 0.5 miles 

of the Survey Corridor. Thus, impacts to potential suitable foraging habitat are not expected to impact this 

species. It is anticipated that a finding of may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded 

woodpecker.

Wood Stork. Wood storks are large, long-legged wading birds, about 50 inches tall, with a wingspan of 60 

to 65 inches. The plumage is white except for black primaries and secondaries, and a short black tail. The 

head and neck are largely unfeathered and dark gray in color. The bill is black, thick at the base, and slightly 

decurved. Immature birds are dingy gray and have a yellowish bill. 

Nesting has been restricted to Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina; however, they may have formerly bred 

in most of the southeastern United States and Texas. A second distinct, non-endangered population of wood 

storks breeds from Mexico to northern Argentina.

Wood storks from both populations move northward after breeding, with birds from the southeastern United 

States population moving as far north as North Carolina on the Atlantic Coast and into Alabama and eastern 

Mississippi along the Gulf Coast, and storks from Mexico moving up into Texas and Louisiana and as far 

north as Arkansas and Tennessee along the Mississippi River Valley. Occasional sightings are known from 

all states along and east of the Mississippi River, and sporadic sightings in some states west of the 

Mississippi and in Ontario, Canada.

Storks are birds of freshwater and estuarine wetlands, including ponds, bayheads, flooded pastures, oxbow 

lakes, and ditches. They nest primarily in cypress or mangrove swamps. They feed in freshwater marshes, 

narrow tidal creeks, or flooded tidal pools. Particularly attractive feeding sites are depressions in marshes 

or swamps where fish become concentrated during periods of falling water levels. 

The wood stork is listed as an endangered species by USFWS in only Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and South 

Carolina because at the time of listing, that was the range of the U.S. breeding population. Birds from 

Mexican and Guatemalan breeding populations can be found in the U.S. as well, but these birds are not 

considered endangered. It is assumed birds found in Mississippi came from the non-listed population. 

In Mississippi, storks are found on the western edge of the state in those areas bordering the Mississippi 

River. Nesting wood storks have not been confirmed in Mississippi, although a report of possible nesting 

was made along the Mississippi River north of Vicksburg. Although storks are not known to nest in 

Mississippi, the forested wetland habitat, freshwater streams, and location of the Study Area may provide 

suitable stopover and foraging habitat. It is anticipated that a finding of may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect the Wood Stork.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-43

Florida Panther. The Florida panther is tawny, brown on the back and pale gray underneath. It is one of 

32 Puma concolor subspecies known by many names – puma, cougar, mountain lion, painter, catamount

and panther. Panthers historically ranged across the southeastern United States including Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and parts of Tennessee and South Carolina. Currently, 

the breeding population of Florida panthers is found only in the southern tip of Florida, south of the 

Caloosahatchee River. In recent years, young male panthers have traveled north into central and northeast 

Florida, and one even dispersed to west-central Georgia near the Alabama border. Females do not roam as 

widely and none has been documented outside of south Florida in decades.

Florida panthers are about 6 to 7 feet long – males are bigger than females. They are carnivores and skilled 

at hunting white-tailed deer, feral hogs, raccoons, and other medium-sized mammals and reptiles. Florida 

panthers also stalk birds. 

Florida panthers utilize a diversity of warm climate habitats. They live in wetlands, swamps, upland forests, 

and stands of saw palmetto. Panthers are wide-ranging, secretive, and occur at low densities. They require 

large, contiguous areas to meet their social, reproductive, and energetic needs. Panther habitat selection is 

related to prey availability. Dense understory vegetation provides some of the most important feeding, 

resting, and denning habitat for panthers. The historic range of the Florida panther extended throughout the 

Gulf Coast from Florida to Louisiana. Florida panthers live alone, unless a pair is mating or a female is 

raising cubs. Males roam much larger territories than the females. A male can occupy a territory over 200 

to 250 square miles in size. 

The Florida panther probably once ranged over most of Mississippi. Unconfirmed reports of panthers in 

Mississippi over the past few years have been concentrated along the Mississippi River and along the lower 

Pearl River. No records could be located documenting the panther within the vicinity of the Survey 

Corridor. 

The corridor’s hardwood forested wetlands and swamp areas provide suitable habitat and food for the 

Florida panther, although it less frequently occurs in upland pine forests or pine savannahs. The lack of 

thick understory in most of the Survey Corridor is not suitable for denning. It is anticipated that a finding 

of may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Florida panther.

5.14.3 State-Listed Species

There is no suitable habitat within the Survey Corridor for the following state listed species: Crystal darter 

(Crystallaria asprella), Frecklebelly madtom (Notorus munitus), southern hognose snake (Heterodon 

simus), southeastern snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines tenuirostris), and brown pelican (Pelecanus 

occidentalis). These state listed species have been dismissed from further discussion since there is low 

probability or not likely to occur.

There are three state-listed species that could potentially occur within the Study Area which include the 

Ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus), Rainbow snake (Farancia erytrogramma), and the Louisiana black 

bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) see Table 5.12.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-44

Table 5.12: Effects on Listed State Species with

Potential Suitable Habitat in the Survey Corridor

Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal 

Status1

State 

Status1

Potential Habitat Present Potential Impact

OTHER STATE-LISTED SPECIES

Ironcolor shiner

Notropis chalybaeus - E Yes No

Rainbow snake

Farancia erytrogramma

- E Yes May adversely impact 

Black bear

Ursus americanus DL E Yes No

1 E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate species; DL = Delisted; - = not listed

All state species descriptions, preferred habitat, and location of known occurrences are summarized from a 

report entitled Endangered Species of Mississippi108 unless otherwise noted.

Ironcolor Shiner. The ironcolor shiner is a small fish with a deep, compressed body that is generally arched 

and only reaches 2.5 inches in length. It is colorful, with straw yellow above, a dusky stripe along the back 

and a silvery-white color below. A very prominent black stripe runs along the side, beginning at a black 

spot at the base of the tail and continuing around the snout, covering both lips and its chin. The inside of 

the mouth is black. Scales are darkly outlined except just above the black stripe where a gold-orange streak 

may be present. Breeding males often have an orange-gold body and fins.

The ironcolor shiner is found primarily in lowland streams where stream reaches are characterized by 

abundant aquatic vegetation, open swamp habitat, and/or areas draining densely canopied woodlands. It has 

been observed in deep pool areas of creeks and small rivers, as well as in bodies of water where a moderate 

current exists. They occur in areas with aquatic vegetation, such as bladderwort, pondweed and Elodea. 

Sand seems to be important for spawning.

In Mississippi, this species of shiner has historically occurred within the coastal area of the state in the 

Coastal Rivers, Pascagoula and Pearl River drainage systems and may exist in the Survey Corridor, 

although none were observed during field investigations. Several creeks and streams are found within the 

Survey Corridor. Each stream had slow to moderate current and silty mud bottoms. The preferred aquatic 

vegetation was not observed in streams during field reconnaissance. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated

to negatively impact this species.

Rainbow Snake.

109 The rainbow snake is a large (up to 66 inches), non-venomous, highly aquatic snake 

that is seldom seen because of its secretive habits. Rainbow snakes are among the most beautiful snakes in 

the United States. Adults have three red stripes running down a glossy black back. The belly is red or pink 

with two or three rows of black spots. Yellowish coloration is often present on the head and sides. They 

have small dark eyes, smooth shiny scales, and a pointed tail tip. Male rainbow snakes are smaller than 

females but have relatively longer and thicker tails. Young rainbow snakes resemble adults but generally 

lack any yellow coloration.

 

108 Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2014. Endangered Species of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.

109 Portions of this species description are from http://srelherp.uga.edu/snakes/farery.htm.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-45

Rainbow snakes are found in the Coastal Plain of the southern United States from southern Virginia to 

eastern Louisiana. In Mississippi, it has been recorded in Forrest, Jackson, Hancock, Lamar, Pearl River, 

and Copiah counties. Rainbow snakes are found in a variety of aquatic habitats but are most common in 

cypress swamps and flowing-water habitats such as blackwater creeks, streams, and rivers, with soils which 

are sandy enough to allow it to burrow. In coastal areas, rainbow snakes can be found in tidal or even 

brackish water. Although highly aquatic, rainbow snakes occasionally move overland and are sometimes 

found far from water.

Rainbow snakes are highly aquatic and spend most of their lives hidden amongst aquatic vegetation and 

debris. Unlike water snakes, rainbow snakes seldom bask out of the water, preferring to remain burrowed 

into vegetation or soil, and thus are seldom encountered anywhere in its range, implying that it is a relatively 

rare species. However, due to its secretive nature, may be much more common than it appears. Rainbow 

snakes are perhaps most frequently encountered crossing roads adjacent to aquatic habitats, particularly on 

rainy summer nights. When captured, rainbow snakes do not bite.

The wetlands and other aquatic habitats in the Survey Corridor provide suitable habitat for the rainbow 

snake, and it has been recorded in Hancock County, Mississippi. It is most likely to be found in the areas 

where hardwoods, cypress swamp, and emergent vegetation occur, providing the ideal vegetative cover and 

habitat for both dwelling and foraging. It is anticipated that the project may adversely impact the 

rainbow snake.

Black Bear. The American black bear is the smallest of the three bears species found in North America,

and is found only in North America. Black bears have short, non-retractable claws that give them an 

excellent tree-climbing ability. American black bears are omnivorous, eating plants, fruits, nuts, insects, 

honey, salmon, small mammals, and carrion. In northern regions, they eat spawning salmon.

It is estimated that at least 600,000 black bears live in North America. In the United States, the population 

is estimated to be over 300,000 individuals. According to historical accounts, black bears once lived 

throughout Mississippi. Today, black bears are primarily found in counties along the Mississippi, Lower 

Pearl, and Pascagoula watersheds. 

Mississippi is home to two subspecies of black bear—the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) 

and Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) are unique subspecies with small populations. The 

Louisiana black bear was recently delisted; the Florida black bear is estimated to number 3,000.

Most of the bears in the state of Mississippi are found along the drainages of major rivers such as the 

Mississippi, Pearl, and Pascagoula, although bears can and have been known to show up just about 

anywhere. Most of the bears found in the state are believed to be transient males that have wandered across 

state lines. They are the dispersing products of breeding populations of bears that border the state in

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alabama. Black bears were listed as endangered in Mississippi in 1984. The 

Louisiana black bear was listed as federally threatened in 1992. However, as noted above, it has recently 

been delisted. Only small differences in skull size and shape exist between the American black bear in north

Mississippi and the Louisiana black bear found in the south. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, 

and Parks’ (MDWFP) biologists currently estimate the Mississippi bear population at less than 150 bears 

in the entire state.

Suitable habitat occurs in the Survey Corridor, primarily in hardwood forested areas. No sightings of the 

black bear occurred during field reconnaissance, and there are no documents of it inhabiting the Survey 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-46

Corridor. Because bears are mobile animals, they are able to avoid temporary disturbances to their 

surroundings. No impact on the species from the Project is anticipated.

5.14.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Effects/Impacts Summary

No-Build Alternative. Since the No-Build Alternative would leave the existing Port Bienville Railroad in 

its current configuration without a north-south connection to the NS mainline and does not include the 

construction of any new railroad features, it would have no adverse effect/impact on any of the protected 

species that may be present within the Study Area.

Build Alternative. Due to potential suitable habitat observed within the survey corridor, the Project may 

affect/impact, but is not likely to adversely affect/impact, the following five federally-listed species: 

Louisiana quillwort, eastern indigo snake, red-cockaded woodpecker, wood stork, and the Florida panther. 

There are two state-listed species within the corridor having suitable habitat which are the Louisiana Black 

Bear and the Rainbow snake. No protected species were observed during field reconnaissance.

Based on the literature review conducted for this EIS, the only documented occurrence of any state or 

federally listed threatened or endangered species or candidate species within the Study Area is the statelisted rainbow snake. The rainbow snake may be adversely impacted with the conversion of wetland and 

aquatic habitats to uplands as part of the proposed construction of the rail Project. This construction may 

reduce the vegetative cover (habitat) and food source of the rainbow snake within the right of way and 

cause displacement. Potential impacts include being struck by construction equipment and vehicles when 

trying to escape its burrow/habitat, stress, and exposure to predators from lack of suitable cover. For all 

species, construction activities could cause temporary displacement or stress. However, these impacts 

would be temporary and would return to normal levels post-construction. Also, listed species are typically 

lower in abundance than other species, so the probability of encountering and therefore affecting a listed 

species within the Project right-of-way is lower than other species of abundant wildlife (raccoons, possums, 

squirrels, etc.). If any of the above-listed species are found in the Build Alternative right-of-way during 

construction, work would be halted and additional coordination with USFWS would be required. See Draft 

Wetland and Threatened and Endangered Species Report, December 2016 Appendix C.

Coordination with USFWS is still ongoing and all determinations are preliminary until USFWS 

concurrence is received.

5.15 Hazardous Materials

No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on the hazardous materials sites 

identified within the quarter-mile search radius.

Build Alternative. Despite the fact that the Nicholson Quick Stop has had three Leaking Underground 

Storage Tank (LUST) cases and a currently open LUST case, this listing would have no impact on the 

proposed Project. The fueling station is located approximately 1,000 feet from the existing Norfolk 

Southern (NS) railroad track, which is well outside the existing rail right-of-way and any proposed 

construction staging areas. No real estate acquisitions are expected in that segment of the proposed rail 

Project.

Any unexploded ordnance (UXO) within the bombing ranges could potentially impact the Project during 

construction, but would not impact the Project during operation. In order to reduce the risk that UXO 

presents, a thorough search using metal detectors of all areas within the proposed right-of-way that fall 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-47

within the Hancock County Bombing and Gunnery Range, and where soil would be disturbed or heavy 

equipment utilized, should be conducted prior to construction. In the event that UXO is discovered, all 

construction activity should immediately cease; the area should be evacuated; and local authorities should 

be contacted in order to dispatch a bomb disposal unit to the UXO location. No UXO’s were discovered 

during field investigations.

During construction of the proposed Project, construction waste may consist of hazardous materials and 

wastes generated during clearing, grubbing, milling and other activities. Hazardous materials may be 

discovered during demolition of structures and excavation. 

Prior to construction, health and safety and contingency plans would be developed. The plans would include 

procedures to protect construction workers and the public if hazardous materials are encountered during 

construction. If contaminants are encountered during construction, disposal would occur at facilities and in 

a manner approved by federal, state and local regulations. 

5.15.1 Rail Transport of Hazardous Materials

The following information is excerpted from FRA website, Hazardous Material Transport110 and CSX 

website under safety/hazardous materials.

111

Rail transportation of hazardous materials in the United States is recognized to be the safest method of 

moving large quantities of chemicals over long distances. Recent statistics show that the rail industry’s 

safety performance, as a whole, is improving. In particular, the vast majority of hazardous materials shipped 

by rail tank car every year arrive safely and without incident, and railroads generally have an outstanding 

record in moving shipments of hazardous materials safely. 

Freight railroads have established recommended operating practices for the transportation of hazardous 

materials pursuant to Association of American Railroads (AAR) Recommended Railroad Operating 

Practices for Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Circular No. OT-55-I (CPC-1174, Supplement No. 

1) (AAR 2006). Continuous sponsored industry and government improvements in rail equipment, tank car 

and container design and construction, and inspection and maintenance methods have resulted in reducing 

derailments, spills, leaks and casualties while the volume of traffic increases (FRA 2016d). Railroads that 

transport hazardous materials have highly trained experts that manage hazardous material movements and 

respond to hazardous material incidents. The transport of hazardous materials is regulated by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Transportation 

Security Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA). These regulations mandate that the transport of hazardous materials 

be conducted with the highest level of care and security. 

Freight railroads are considered “common carriers” under U.S. interstate commerce laws and are legally 

required to move any freight including hazardous materials, provided that they are contained within a 

government approved rail car or container. Rail cars that transport hazardous materials must meet strict 

federal regulations. 

 

110 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2016d. “Hazardous Materials Transportation.” https://www.fra.dot/Page/P0151 (accessed July 8, 

2016).

111 CSX 2016b. “Hazardous Materials.” https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/safety/hazardous-materials1/ (accessed November 22, 

2016).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-48

The majority of hazardous materials are chemicals that are essential to the economy of the U.S. and are 

used to manufacture every day products. Hazardous commodities, by U.S. DOT hazard class, are listed 

below. 

▪ Class I – Explosives

▪ Class 2 – Gases

▪ Class 3 – Flammable Liquids

▪ Class 4 – Other Flammable Substances

▪ Class 5 – Oxidizing Substances and Organic Peroxides

▪ Class 6 – Toxic (Poisonous) and Infectious Substances

▪ Class 7 – Radioactive Material

▪ Class 8 – Corrosives

▪ Class 9 – Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials

Emergency Response

USEPA regulations address spill prevention and cleanup. Most USEPA regulations address fixed facilities 

rather than transport activities. However, USEPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 263, are applicable to 

transporters of hazardous waste, and specify immediate response actions, discharge cleanup, and other 

requirements for transporters of hazardous waste. Finally, OSHA regulations in 29 CFR § 1910.120, 

address hazardous waste operations and emergency response, and specify emergency response and cleanup 

operations for releases of hazardous substances and substantial threats of such releases.

5.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not result in any changes within the Study Area 

and therefore, no aesthetic or visual quality impacts would occur.

Build Alternative. The presence of proposed rail corridor would affect the aesthetics and visual fabric of 

the Study Area by adding another linear feature to the landscape similar in manor as any road or cleared 

easement. When a train or service vehicle is not on the tracks, transverse visibility would be less than two 

and a half miles without landscape or other screens. This is based on the curvature of the earth which causes 

an approximate eight-degree drop per mile. Most of the residents, workers and visitors to the area would 

not see the proposed railroad corridor except at roadway crossings. There would be 22 at-grade crossings –

15 of these crossings are private, gated logging road. There would be three new grade-separated crossings 

created by the Build Alternative and there is one existing grade-separated bridge exists over I-59. The new 

public roadway crossings are listed in Table 5.13. See Draft Modified Phase 1 Environmental Site 

Assessment Report Appendix F.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-49

Table 5.13: New Public Roadway Crossings of the Proposed Project

Grade Separated Public Road Crossing Crossing type

Interstate 10 Grade separated with RR over

LA Route 607 Grade separated with RR over

U.S. Route 90 Grade separated with RR over

At-Grade Public Road Crossing Crossing Type

Old Lower Bay Road Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade crossing signs

Unknown Public Road Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade crossing signs

Unknown Public Road Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade crossing signs

Unknown Public Road Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade crossing signs

Catahoula Public Road Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade crossing signs

Mainline Road Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade crossing signs

Flattop Road Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade crossing signs

There would be minimal visual affects at these crossing locations associated with the occasional train traffic

anticipated. It should be noted that the three new proposed grade-separated crossings would cause a slightly 

greater visual impact because the bridges required for this grade separation would be visible for a further 

distance. However, all of these bridges are located within the SSC buffer zone so there are no inhabitable 

buildings nearby that would see the bridge. In addition, the bridges would primarily be visible from the 

transportation facilities that they cross. Therefore, the visual effects are considered minimal.

There are two neighborhoods that could be affected by new crossings and/or the reactivation of existing 

crossing resulting from the proposed Project.

Old Lower Bay Road Neighborhood – This area consists of approximately 10 houses and at its closest 

point it is located approximately 0.4 mile from the proposed rail corridor. Although, there are tree-lines on 

either side of Old Lower Bay Road and a quarry, which has limestone mounds on the southern side of the 

road, the residents within this neighborhood would be able to see both the railroad corridor and the trains 

from vantage points on their property; because the rail line would be at ground level and obstructed by trees 

except for approximately 20 feet as it crosses Old Lower Bay Road, itself; in addition, only two trains are 

anticipated to use this rail line per day. Therefore, visual effects of the new rail line on this community 

would be minimal.

Joe Fleming Road Neighborhood – This area consists of approximately 18 houses and five businesses. 

The neighborhood is located very close to the existing NS rail corridor that would be incorporated into the 

proposed Project. This rail corridor is currently used for rail car storage and train traffic is an existing visual 

landscape. Since the track is currently located adjacent to this neighborhood, the visual impairment would 

not be related to the tracks themselves but the additional train traffic associated with the Build Alternative; 

the track is expected to see approximately two trains per day. Some of the residences in this neighborhood 

would be able to see the occasional train from vantage points on their property. This is considered a minimal 

visual affect for adjacent communities. 

There are no Section 4(f) or 6(f) properties located within the visual APE of the proposed Project. Therefore, 

the proposed Project would not have any visual or aesthetic impacts on any 4(f) or 6(f) properties. The 

cultural resource survey identified 3 historic properties within the architectural APE, however, none are 

eligible for the NRHP. As a result, there are no aesthetic or visual quality affects to NRHP properties. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-50

5.17 Transportation

5.17.1 Transportations Impacts

No-Build Alternative. The future and planned expansion projects within the Port Bienville Industrial Park 

may place a greater demand on the Study Area roadway network (see Section 4.18.1). New and expanding 

manufacturing facilities would require additional employees and services, thus generating additional 

vehicular traffic and placing a greater demand on the existing roadway network. It should be noted that the 

Study Area roadways are relatively low-volume facilities for their respective functional classifications, and 

should be able to accommodate normal traffic growth. No roadway capacity-related improvement projects 

for Study Area roadways have been identified by MDOT. 

As part of the No-Build Alternative, impacts to the existing highway network would remain the same as 

existing conditions. Existing rail infrastructure along the NS right of way and at intersecting at-grade 

crossings, which are located in the northern portion of the Study Area, would likely remain in-place 

however, there would be no trains operating on the existing track, thus eliminating all vehicle and train 

conflicts associated with highway-rail at-grade crossings. 

The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on other transportation modes such as pedestrians and 

bicycles. No conflicts between trains and pedestrians and bikes would occur as rail operations would not 

be implemented. 

Build Alternative. The proposed Project is identified as a near-term priority within the Mississippi State 

Rail Plan (MDOT 2011a). The proposed Project would provide a direct connection between Port Bienville 

and the NS rail line near I‐59 in Nicholson. The proposed rail connection to the NS would also provide 

access to the Canadian National Railroad further north in Hattiesburg. Overall, the proposed Project would 

link to both the CSX and NS main lines in Hancock and Pearl River Counties, providing Port Bienville with 

the access to dual Class I rail service.

The proposed Project would repair and upgrade a 5.33-mile portion of the inactive NS rail line between 

U.S. Highway 11 and Texas Flat Road. This segment of existing rail previously served SSC. The existing 

track within this segment consists of 100 pound and 85 pound rail with wood ties. 

South of Texas Flat Road, the proposed Project consists of new rail that would be constructed with a 

proposed 100-foot right-of-way. The new alignment segment is approximately 18.3 miles in length. 

Approximately 96,624 track feet of rail would be constructed as part of the Project. The proposed track 

would consist of 136 pound (136#) continuously welded rail with wood ties. Manual and electric turnouts 

would be installed. 

Proposed Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

As part of the conceptual engineering that was undertaken for the proposed rail alignment, proposed 

highway-rail grade crossings along the 24-mile rail corridor are depicted in Figure 5.12. Depending on 

highway functional classification and existing traffic volume, the proposed grade crossings consist of gradeseparated crossings and at-grade crossings (both public and private). Table 5.14 and Figure 5.12

summarizes the grade crossing locations along the alignment of the Build Alternative, which are further 

described below.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-51

Figure 5.12: Proposed Grade Crossings along Project Alignment
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-52

Table 5.14: Proposed Grade Crossings along Project Alignment

Roadway Crossing

Location

Alignment 

Centerline Station 

(1)

Crossing Type and Disposition

At-Grade Grade-Separated; 

Public Private Public Crossing

PROPOSED RAIL ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT WITHIN EXISTING NS RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY

U.S. Highway 11 Sta 7+91 Existing

Interstate 59 Sta 38+30 Existing; Rail over

Asa McQueen Road Sta 84+93 Existing

Unknown Roadway Sta 128+80 Existing

Unknown Roadway Sta 155+29 Existing

Ridge Road Sta 199+45 Existing

Texas Flat Road Sta 229+74 Existing

PROPOSED RAIL ON NEW ALIGNMENT WITHIN REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY

Unknown Roadway Sta 256+02 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 297+17 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 311+33 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 339+74 Proposed

Flat Top Road Sta 378+79 Proposed

Mainline Road Sta 448+92 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 547+15 Proposed

Catahoula Road Sta 583+26 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 627+37 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 666+20 Proposed

Crown Road Sta 709+31 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 742+31 Proposed

Interstate 10 Sta 867+50 Proposed; Rail over

Utility Access Road Sta 906+50 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 950+00 Proposed

SR Route 607 Sta 992+70 Proposed; Rail over

U.S. Highway 90 Sta 1025+01 Proposed; Rail over

Unknown Roadway Sta 1122+26 Proposed

Old Lower Bay Road Sta 1175+76 Proposed

Total No. of Crossings by Type 13 9 4

Note 1: Station locations are based on conceptual rail alignment maps

Grade-Separated Crossings

Four grade-separated crossings would occur along the entire Project corridor. These locations include the 

existing rail bridge over I-59 in Nicholson and three new grade-separated structures at I-10, SR 607 and 

U.S. 90. For the new grade-separations, the rail would be elevated over the roadway with a bridge structure, 

and embankment sections would be constructed on each approach to the bridge. Bridge lengths would be 

determined based on existing topography, existing cross street right-of-way and proposed vertical 

geometry. 

Public At-Grade Crossings

Thirteen public at-grade crossings would occur along the entire limits of the Project corridor. Six of the 

public at-grade crossings would be located on the north end of the corridor where the existing rail crosses 

U.S. 11, Asa McQueen Road, Ridge Road, Texas Flat Road, and two unknown roads. Seven additional 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-53

public at-grade crossings would occur at Flat Top Road, Mainline Road, Catahoula Road, Old Lower Bay 

Road, and three unknown roads.

Private At-Grade Crossings

Along the main line alignment from Texas Flat Road to U.S. 90, there would be approximately nine private 

at-grade crossings. All of these crossings would occur at existing local access roadways, many of which are 

unpaved or unimproved asphalt roadways and do not have designated street names. These existing 

roadways provide access to parcels of land owned by private landholders. In addition, several of the atgrade crossings are located within the SSC acoustical buffer zone.

Proposed Road Closures

Due to the close proximity of existing private roadways in relationship to the three proposed grade 

separations, a few adjacent private roadways would need to be closed to accommodate the embankment 

sections associated with the bridge approaches. However, no land parcels would lose access due to the 

proposed Project. Access to existing parcels of land would be maintained and/or consolidated through the 

construction of parallel access roads. The access roads would be located adjacent to the proposed rail right 

of way. Existing private roads recommended for closure include:

▪ one private road closure north of I-10, 

▪ two private road closures immediately north and south of SR 607; and

▪ one private road closure south of U.S. 90. 

Proposed Traffic Control Measures at Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings

In accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD), traffic control for grade crossings includes all signs, signals, markings, other warning devices, 

and their supports along highways approaching and at grade crossings. The function of this type of traffic 

control is to promote safety and provide effective operation of rail and highway traffic at grade crossings. 

Before any new highway-rail grade crossing traffic control system is installed, or before modifications are 

made to an existing system, approval shall be obtained from the highway agency with the jurisdictional 

and/or statutory authority, and from the railroad company.112 MDOT Freight Rail Division and MDOT 

Traffic Engineering Division would be responsible for approving traffic control measures on state maintain 

roadways, while Hancock County would be responsible for these approvals on local county roads. The 

proposed traffic control measures would be coordinated through the Port Bienville Railroad during the 

design phase of the Project. 

Highway-rail grade crossing traffic control measures would be implemented in accordance with the 

MUTCD standards as part of the Project. Recommended traffic control for highway-rail at-grade crossings 

would include one grade crossing (crossbuck) sign on each highway approach. The crossbuck sign is a 

warning to on-coming traffic of a highway-rail at-grade crossing and of a driver’s responsibility to yield to 

rail traffic if a train is approaching a crossing. In addition, a Grade Crossing Advance Warning sign shall 

be used on each highway in advance of every public highway-rail grade crossing. Several other advance 

warning signs can be used to alert drivers of highway-rail crossing conditions (see Figure 5.13). 

 

112 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways. 2009

Edition. Updated in 2012.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-54

Figure 5.13: Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossing Signage

Recommended Signs

Grade Crossing sign 

(R15-1) (Crossbuck)

Grade Crossing 

Advance Warning 

sign (W10-1)

Optional Traffic 

Control/Advance 

Warning Signs

Diagonal Crossing 

(W10-12)

Parallel Crossing 

(W10-3)

Stop Sign 

(if needed)

Yield Sign 

(if needed)

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways (FHWA 2009). 

In addition to MUTCD-compliant grade crossing signage, various on-street pavement markings are 

recommended for installation at public at-grade crossings. These markings would include stop lines, 

dynamic envelope pavement markings, and railroad pavement marking symbols. Figure 5.14 provides an 

example layout of safety devices for a public highway-rail grade crossing.

Table 5.15 summarizes the proposed traffic control measures that are recommended for installation at each 

of the 22 at-grade crossings. Advance warning signs, on-street pavement markings, signal gates and flashing 

lights are proposed at all public at-grade crossings. At the remaining private at-grade crossings, which 

would consist of very low volume roadways, crossbuck signs are recommended. On U.S. 11, pedestrian 

crossing signs to accommodate Nicholson Elementary School students should be considered, if warranted. 

During the design phase of the Project, pedestrian crossings would be evaluated to determine if adequate 

refuge areas are provided at this crossing location. MDOT Freight Rail Division and MDOT Traffic 

Engineering Division would be responsible for approving traffic control measures on U.S. 11.

Traffic control and signing and pavement marking plans which illustrate the proposed traffic measures for 

each of these locations would be developed as part of the Project design. Concurrence and approval from 

the highway agencies (MDOT, Hancock County and Pearl River County) with the jurisdictional and/or 

statutory authority for each roadway would be required. See Draft Transportation and Safety Report 

Appendix G.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-55

Figure 5.14: Highway-Rail Crossing Signage and On-street Pavement Marking Example

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways, Page 765 (FHWA 2009).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-56

Table 5.15: Proposed Traffic Control Measures at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Roadway Crossing

Location

Alignment 

Centerline 

Station (1)

Crossing Type

(Public/Private) Proposed At-Grade Crossing Measures

U.S. Highway 11 Sta 7+91 Public

Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade 

crossing signs (crossbucks and grade-crossing 

advance railroad crossing) 

Asa McQueen Road Sta 84+93 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 128+80 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 155+29 Public

Ridge Road Sta 199+45 Public

Texas Flat Road Sta 229+74 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 256+02 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 297+17 Private

Unknown Roadway Sta 311+33 Private Crossbuck signs

Unknown Roadway Sta 339+74 Private

Flat Top Road Sta 378+79 Public

Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade 

crossing signs (crossbucks and grade-crossing 

advance railroad crossing) 

Mainline Road Sta 448+92 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 547+15 Public

Catahoula Road Sta 583+26 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 627+37 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 666+20 Private

Crossbuck signs

Crown Road Sta 709+31 Private

Unknown Roadway Sta 742+31 Private

Utility Access Road Sta 906+50 Private

Unknown Roadway Sta 950+00 Private

Unknown Roadway Sta 1122+26 Private

Old Lower Bay Road Sta 1175+76 Public

Gates, flashers, pavement markings and grade 

crossing signs (crossbucks and grade-crossing 

advance railroad crossing)

Note 1: Station locations are based on conceptual rail alignment maps prepared by HDR.

5.17.2 Build Alternative Delay Analysis at Proposed Highway-Rail Public AtGrade Crossings

Traffic Delay Analysis Overview

Train crossings interrupt roadway traffic flow for a period of time at highway-rail at-grade crossings. Speed 

and length of the train are the primary factors that contribute to vehicular delay. A traffic delay analysis 

was undertaken for the Build Alternative to estimate the projected vehicular delay in 2020 and 2040. To 

characterize future conditions along the Project corridor, the analysis estimated future traffic delays due to 

the train movements at four public highway-rail at-grade crossings. The analysis focused on calculating 

delays to characterize the future effects on vehicular traffic from projected train movements. Table 5.16

briefly describes the parameters that were used to measure the at-grade crossing roadway operational delay.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-57

Table 5.16: Operational Parameters at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Parameter Description

Blocked Crossing 

Time per Train 

(Dc)

The time required for a train to cross the intersecting roadway will be estimated. This time is 

called the blocked crossing time. This value is used to determine the length of time drivers wait 

when trains pass through a highway/rail at-grade crossing. Average train speed is a major factor 

in this calculation. This speed is dependent not only on track conditions and train operating 

characteristics, but also on intersecting commuter and freight rail traffic.

Average Delay per 

Delayed Vehicle 

(Da)

The average delay per delayed vehicle is the average amount of time that a driver would be 

delayed at a highway/rail at-grade crossing as a result of a single train crossing. It assumes a 

uniform arrival of vehicles. Vehicles arrive at a constant rate. When the blocked crossing period 

begins, vehicles begin to queue. When the blocked crossing period ends, queued vehicles begin 

to depart at the constant vehicle departure rate. The departure rate continues until the 

departure curve intersects the arrival curve, signifying the dissipation of the queue.

Vehicle Queue 

Length (Q)

The vehicle queue is the estimated number of vehicles in line at the end of the blocked crossing 

time of a single train event. The vehicle queue is equal to the number of vehicles that arrive 

during the blocked crossing time (De). The vehicle queue during the peak hour of roadway traffic 

is estimated. The peak-hour traffic is assumed to be 10 percent of the ADT volume-a typical 

assumption used by traffic engineers, and consistent with MDOT count data. The vehicle queue 

at the end of the blocked crossing time is determined.

Average Delay for 

All Vehicles (Dv)

The average delay per vehicle is the average amount of time that a vehicle is delayed at that 

intersection.

Average Number 

of Vehicles 

Delayed Per Day 

(Td)

The average number of vehicles delayed per day equals the number of drivers in a 24-hour period 

that would be stopped for trains at highway-rail at-grade crossings. 

Traffic Level of 

Service (LOS)

The vehicle delay effects at highway-rail at-grade crossings uses the LOS concept at signalized 

intersections, as documented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (TRB 2010). Use of 

the HCM procedures for signalized intersections is acceptable for the following reasons: the 

absence of a similar measure of efficiency for highway-rail at-grade crossings, and similarities 

between signalized intersection operation and highway-rail at-grade crossing operation.

Total Daily 

Average Vehicle 

Traffic Delay

The total average vehicle delay for each crossing over a 24-hour period multiplied by the number 

of vehicles delayed is used to estimate the total daily average vehicle traffic delay.

Traffic Delay Analysis Methodology

The model used for calculation of delay at individual at-grade crossings provides a measure of delay based 

upon the time spent waiting for trains to clear individual crossings. This analysis provides output within the 

following general categories.

Maximum Queue Length

The queuing model, which is based upon the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000, developed by the 

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (TRB 2000), measures the length of traffic 

queues created when trains crossing through at-grade intersections stop traffic flow. Measurement of the 

queue length is in the number of vehicles waiting in both directions at the given time the train crosses. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-58

Total Delay

Delay measurements identify two conditions prevalent along the rail corridors:

▪ Aggregate Delay, defined as the total delay (in vehicle hours) incurred by all vehicles passing 

through the rail/road intersection.

▪ Average Delay, defined as the delay experience (in seconds per vehicle) for each peak hour 

experienced by vehicles passing through the rail/road intersection.

Level of Service

Level of Service (LOS) represents traffic operational conditions along various types of roadways and 

intersections. Analysis of level of service depends on the prevailing conditions of traffic operations, 

generally characterized by the following factors:

▪ Traffic density or number of vehicles found on the corridor by lane;

▪ Prevailing speed of operation; and

▪ Ratio of volume to roadway capacity.

The measure of performance, known as the level of service, appear as a letter grade ranging from A to F. 

Level of service C (LOS C) or better conditions typically indicates that traffic movements occur close to, 

or at the posted speed limit. LOS D marks the point in traffic operations where the options to maneuver 

around slower moving vehicles, or vehicles entering/exiting the roadway is severely restricted. Traffic 

operations characterized by slower moving vehicles, including incidents of stopped vehicles or vehicles 

remaining platooned at signals through multiple cycles, reflect LOS E or LOS F conditions. LOS F 

represents that period during which the roadway is at, or over capacity, with breakdowns in traffic flow. 

Traffic Delay Analysis Locations

At-grade crossings along the proposed Project were analyzed for delay under future year conditions in 2020 

and 2040. The analysis focused on public at-grade crossings that would most likely be impacted by the 

proposed Project. The overall transportation network and rural nature of the study area were also 

considered. Along the proposed rail alignment, three future highway-rail grade crossings were evaluated 

including US Highway 11, Texas Flat Road, and Flat Top Road. The existing at-grade crossing on Lower 

Bay Road at the Port entrance was also evaluated. The delay analysis on Lower Bay Road consisted of two 

scenarios: 1) with proposed Project rail traffic from the NS line only and 2) with proposed Project rail traffic 

from the NS line in combination with PBRR traffic on the existing spur that connects to CSX. Due to the 

CSX’s current common carrier obligation with Port Bienville, it is assumed that the existing and projected 

rail volumes for Port Bienville Industrial Park Tenants would continue to be served by CSX.

Highway Data for Traffic Delay Analysis

Traffic data for the delay analysis was provided by the MDOT and the Gulf Regional Planning Commission. 

Average daily traffic (ADT) count data represents the total volume of two-way traffic found at key locations 

in the Study Area. Historical ADT was evaluated to identify changes in overall traffic volumes, which was 

determined to be a 1 percent annual change. This rate of change allowed for annualized growth of traffic 

count data between the date of collection and the established baseline year (2020) and future year (2040). 

Table 5.17 provides a summary of the ADT for each location evaluated. This data demonstrates the low 

volume nature of the majority of roads which cross the proposed Project.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-59

Table 5.17: Grade Crossing Projected Average Daily Traffic Volume Data (2020 and 2040)

At-Grade Crossing Location Existing Volume (year) 2020 

Estimated Volume1

2040

Estimated Volume1

US Highway 11 8,400 (2014) 8,917 10,880

Texas Flat Road 2,064 (2012) 2,235 2,727

Flat Top Road

110 (2011) - -

See Note 1 500 610

Lower Bay Road 1,876 (2012) 2,031 2,479

1

The 2011 traffic count for Texas Flat Road is located to the north of Flat Top Road. The proposed at grade crossing is located on the south 

side of Flat Top Road where there is no traffic count data. Based on the existing roadway network, it is assumed that the volume of traffic on 

Flat Top Road, south of Texas Flat Road, would be higher due to the proximity of access to SSC. Therefore the 2020 volume on Texas Flat Road 

south of Flat Top Road is estimated at 500 vehicles per day.

Rail Data for Traffic Delay Analysis

Estimates of existing and future rail car volumes were developed as part of the delay analysis. The PBRR 

is currently operating 6-day service with 2 trains per day (1 train inbound and 1 train outbound). Each train 

averages 22 cars per train each way. This daily average is based on the actual number of total cars serviced 

(49,013 cars) from January 2013 to present. Annually, PBRR handles approximately 6,200 train cars. These 

existing trains access Port Bienville by way of the CSX mainline near Ansley, Mississippi.

Based on previous interviews that were conducted with existing companies and information from the 

Mississippi Development Authority (MDA), future rail car usage on the Port Bienville Railroad could 

increase significantly given access to dual Class I railroads. The largest projected rail car user, Shale 

Support Services, is currently trucking fracking sands from Hancock County to its drying facility in 

Picayune. Additional product lines are planned for this facility in the near future if dual rail access is 

available, and the Phase II expansion would move 168,000 tons (1,680 rail cars) of material monthly 

(20,160 rail cars annually) from the Hancock County facility (MDOT 2013c).

Table 5.18 depicts the total projected volume of rail traffic with dual Class I rail service into Port Bienville.

Table 5.18: Projected Rail Car Volumes with Dual Class I Rail Service

Existing and Projected Rail User Existing and/or Projected 

Annual Rail Car Volume 

Existing and/or Projected 

Daily Rail Car Volume 

(one-way only)

Existing Rail Car Volume for Existing Port Bienville 

Industrial Park Tenants (1) 6,200 rail cars 22 rail cars

Future Additional Rail Car Volume for Existing Port 

Bienville Industrial Park Tenants (2) 3,530 rail cars 11 rail cars (3)

Projected Rail Car Volumes for Phase II Shale 

Support Services Facility in Hancock County (2) 20,160 rail cars 65 rail cars (3)

Total Projected Rail Car Volumes for Existing 

Industries and MDA Industrial Prospect 29,890 rail cars 98 rail cars

(1) Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission, email correspondence dated June 2, 2016 and August 25, 2016.

(2) Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study, CDM Smith, September 2013.

(3) Projected Daily Volume Based on 6-day Service Weekly per Year.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-60

As part of the grade crossing analysis, projected rail car volumes were distributed among the Class I 

railroads as shown in Table 5.19. Due to the CSX’s current common carrier obligation with Port Bienville, 

it is assumed that the existing and projected rail volumes for Port Bienville Industrial Park Tenants would 

continue to be served by CSX. For purposes of the delay analysis, projected one-way rail volumes on the 

existing PBRR are estimated to be 22 cars in 2020, increasing to 33 cars by 2040.

The remainder of the projected rail traffic would utilize the proposed rail line. Based on the distribution of 

projected daily rail car volumes, it is estimated that the proposed rail line would move 65 rail cars (oneway only) on a daily basis by 2040. In the interim, the projected one-way rail volume on the proposed rail 

line is estimated to be 30 cars in 2020.

Table 5.19: Distribution of Projected Daily Rail Car Volumes by Class I Railroad (one-way only)

Existing and Projected Rail User

Total Projected 

Daily Rail Car 

Volumes 

(one-way only)

Full Build - 2040

Projected Daily Rail 

Car Volumes -

Existing CSX 

Projected Daily Rail 

Car Volumes -

NS/Proposed 

Project 

2020 2040 2020 2040

Existing Rail Car Volume for Existing Port 

Bienville Industrial Park Tenants 22 rail cars 22 22 - -

Future Projected Additional Rail Car Volume 

for Existing Port Bienville Industrial Park 

Tenants

11 rail cars - 11 - -

Projected Rail Car Volumes for Phase II Shale 

Support Services Facility in Hancock County 65 rail cars - - 30 65

Total Projected Rail Car Volumes for Existing 

Industries and Future Industrial Prospects 136 rail cars 22 33 30 65

Train Lengths (L)

The numbers of existing and projected cars per train is projected to vary from 22 to 65 cars. With each car 

having an average length of 60 feet including the coupling, plus an 80 foot locomotive, train lengths could 

range from 1,400 feet to 4,060 feet. Trains over 50 cars would require two locomotives, which is accounted 

for within the 65 car - 4,060 feet train set.

Train Speed (V)

The average train operating speed provided by the PBRR Railway is 39 miles per hour (mph). For the delay 

analysis, it was assumed that the average train speed for the proposed Project would be 30 mph at proposed 

public highway-rail grade crossings. At the Port entrance, a 20 mph speed was assumed for the train to 

cross Lower Bay Road.

Traffic Delay Analysis Results

As part of the proposed Project, the number of trains crossing Lower Bay Road immediately east of the 

Port entrance is anticipated to increase to 4 trains per day. This includes 2 trains per day (inbound and 

outbound) on the proposed rail line plus 2 trains per day (inbound and outbound) on the existing PBRR that 

connects to CSX. 

The results of the traffic delay analysis indicate that vehicle operations at each of the crossings evaluated 

are not projected to experience any level of delay in 2020 and 2040, as indicated by the level of service A. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-61

Blockage of public at-grade intersections is not anticipated and motorist delay is not projected. Queue 

lengths are anticipated to be minimal, as is total vehicle delay. 

5.18 Utility Impacts

No-Build Alternative. No utility relocations or adjustments would be required for the No-Build 

Alternative. 

Build Alternative. As previously described, the uniqueness of the SSC acoustical buffer zone greatly limits 

the type and number of infrastructure within the Study Area; however, as shown in Figure 5.15, several 

major gas lines, power lines, and hazardous liquid lines cross the proposed right-of-way. Given the rural 

nature of most of the study area, impacts to other overhead and underground utilities are expected to be 

minimal. Impacts to both overhead and underground utilities would be assessed during the detailed design 

phase and any impacts would be resolved prior to or during construction through adjustment, relocation, or 

modification. 

Specific utility information such as pipeline depths, overhead clearances for power lines, and the location 

of utility poles within the Project right-of-way is unknown at this time. Project design would include utility 

surveys and subsurface utility investigations to determine the horizontal and vertical location of utility 

infrastructure. Surveys would be followed by design phase services that would identify potential utility 

impacts and potential relocations or adjustments. 

All modifications, relocations or adjustments would remain subject to coordination with the affected 

utilities. For pipelines and other underground infrastructure, Mississippi’s “One Call” underground utility 

notification service (Mississippi 811, Inc.)113 would be contacted by the contractor prior to commencing 

construction operations. Coordination would be required to ensure that overhead and underground utilities 

meet American Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association (AREMA) standards within the 

proposed right-of-way.

During construction and prior to operation of the proposed Project, a rail safety public awareness program 

would be implemented. Since rail service has not been in operation within the Study Area for over a decade, 

this type of program would benefit residents and motorists alike.

 

113 Mississippi 811, Inc. (http://ms1call.org/) is a non-profit organization providing underground utility notification service under Mississippi 

Code of 1972, Chapter 13, Sections 77-13-1 through 77-13-23.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-62

Figure 5.15: Gas Line Crossings
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-63

5.19 Energy 

When importing and exporting goods, the companies within the Port Bienville Industrial Park use a 

combination of transportation modes available to the park, i.e. truck, rail, and barge. The amount of energy 

required to haul the same amount of cargo varies by mode. For example, rail transport is more than twice 

as efficient as truck hauling. Railroads can move 1 ton of cargo 413 miles for the same amount of fuel as it 

takes a truck to haul 1 ton of cargo 155 miles114. 

Currently, rail freight bound for Port Bienville must travel to the Gentilly Yard in New Orleans, and then 

be backhauled to Port Bienville. This additional time and distance increases the energy consumption of rail 

transport. Gentilly Yard is often congested. It is not unusual for rail cars to take at least 7 days to move 

from Gentilly Yard back to Port Bienville, and transit times as long as 28 days were reported by Port 

Bienville Industrial Park rail users115. This transportation inefficiency leads to increased energy 

consumption; for example, one Port Bienville Industrial Park business had to hire hundreds of trucks to 

offload a rail shipment in order to avoid a customer penalty for late delivery.

No-Build Alternative. In the no-build scenario, rail freight bound for Port Bienville would continue to 

travel to the Gentilly Yard in New Orleans, and then be backhauled to Port Bienville as described above. 

No other route options would be available to move cargo more efficiently to reduce energy consumption.

Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would reduce the direct consumption of energy as compared to 

the No-Build Alternative in the following two ways:

1) The Build Alternative would provide dual Class I rail service, which would provide an alternative 

to the current rail route. In some cases, this alternative route would provide a shorter, more efficient 

rail route, reducing the distance traveled by rail cars, and therefore reducing the consumption of 

fuel.

2) In some situations, the Build Alternative would replace truck transport with rail, which is more 

energy efficient and reduces overall energy consumption. Rail uses less than half the amount of 

fuel as trucks to move the same amount of freight. 

In addition to the direct fuel savings described above, the Build Alternative has some indirect energy 

conservation benefits. The primary indirect benefit is that the proposed rail line would help locate new 

commercial and industrial development in, or adjacent to, existing developed areas reducing the potential 

for new industries to develop in areas that would be more truck dependent. Increasing rail options at the 

Port Bienville Industrial Park would attract new businesses to the multi-modal transportation hub and 

encourage the use of barge and rail transportation over less fuel-efficient trucking mode. 

SSC does not have rail service at present, although rail was available to Stennis in the past. The proposed 

alignment for the new rail connector would run east of the Stennis facility, and access to the proposed rail 

connector could be extended near the north gate. Several SSC businesses interviewed for the Phase 1 study 

in 2013 indicated interest in shipping by rail2. These businesses currently ship large components by truck. 

 

114 www.marad.dot.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/water_works_REV.pdf, accessed on June 21, 2016.

115 Port Bienville Economic Development Benefits and Opportunities Analysis. Presented to Mississippi Department of Transportation in 

collaboration with Federal Railroad Administration and Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission. Prepared by CDM Smith in association 

with HDR. September 19, 2013.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-64

These businesses also noted they were aware of other research contractors that would be more inclined to 

move facilities to Stennis if rail were available.

The proposed north-south rail connection to the NS railroad also provides an option to move rail equipment, 

industrial equipment, materials, and other critical components out of harm’s way in advance of tropical 

storm surges, which could reduce potential energy consumption required for clean up after tropical storms 

and hurricanes. 

5.20 Construction Impacts

Construction impacts would be temporary and short-term and would therefore not result in any permanent 

damage. Construction impacts are related to the same types of topics discussed earlier in this DEIS such as

air quality, water quality, noise/vibration, hazardous materials, public safety, wetlands and wildlife. 

Construction impacts would be controlled, minimized, or mitigated by closely adhering to applicable 

federal, state and local laws governing safety, health, and sanitation and through conformance with 

established construction methods. Most of the proposed rail alignment is located away from residential, 

public, and business structures, so construction impacts, such as noise, to citizens and business operations 

would be limited.

The following sections outline specific types of construction impacts and provide examples of safeguards, 

safety devices, protective equipment, and other reasonable actions that can be implemented to protect the 

safety of the work crew, public, property, and environment in connection with the construction of the 

Project. 

5.20.1 Air Quality

Air quality impacts during construction can be caused by emissions from construction vehicles and 

equipment; emissions from local vehicles resulting from detours and other traffic delays during 

construction; and dust from construction sites. Emissions from vehicles and equipment increase greenhouse 

gases. 

Emissions from construction vehicles and equipment would be minimized by properly maintaining and 

tuning equipment; reducing equipment idling time; planning efficient routes from construction material 

loading sites to the construction site; and using alternative fuels for construction equipment, when feasible. 

Emissions from local vehicles resulting from detours and other traffic delays during construction would be 

minimized by properly planning work zone flow and signage. Dust generated by construction activities 

would be minimized by:

▪ applying water suppression to active construction areas several times a day;

▪ covering trucks carrying loose materials, such as soil and sand, with tarp, or requiring that trucks 

maintain several feet of freeboard;

▪ applying non-toxic soil stabilizers or regularly apply water to unpaved access roads, parking areas, 

and staging areas;

▪ spraying all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas with water daily; 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-65

▪ seeding or applying non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas and replanting 

vegetation as quickly as possible to minimize erosion in disturbed areas;

▪ enclosing, covering and watering, or applying non-toxic soil stabilizers, to exposed stockpiles of 

dirt, sand, etc.;

▪ limiting traffic speeds on unpaved roads; and/or

▪ using appropriate erosion control measures to reduce silt runoff.

5.20.2 Water Quality

Temporary impacts to surface and groundwater during construction can result from stormwater runoff, 

erosion and sedimentation, and accidental spills or discharges during construction. Impacts can be 

minimized by following strict stormwater management rules and regulations, use of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs), erosion control, and turbidity reduction. To prepare for any accidental spills, a spill 

prevention and emergency response plan would be developed and implemented.

Prior to construction, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) water discharge permit would be obtained. As part of the NPDES permit, 

MDOT would develop Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) for the Project. The SWPPP 

would include mandatory BMPs to minimize potential sediment transport due to construction activities, 

including obligatory erosion control techniques, stormwater management, and channel dewatering for all 

stream crossings. Example BMPs include practices that:

▪ store and dispose of construction materials so they are not discharged into or alongside streams or 

other water bodies;

▪ minimize contact between construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies with 

stormwater;

▪ control the release of contaminants near areas of surface water or groundwater recharge.

▪ reduce soil erosion including watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of straw 

bales, sediment basins, and soil stabilization;

▪ re-establish vegetative cover at stockpiling and staging sites after construction to reduce runoff and 

lessen sediment loadings; and

▪ maintain water quality through filtration, detention, and retention systems, constructed wetlands, 

biofiltration/bioretention systems, grass buffer strips, ponding areas, organic mulch layers, soil 

beds, sand beds, or biofilters such as vegetated swales to convey and treat runoff.

5.20.3 Noise and Vibration

Activities that cause noise and vibration during railroad and bridge construction include haul truck and 

heavy equipment operation, pile driving, and compaction of embankments. The range of noise depends on 

activity, construction schedule (time of day and duration of activity), and distance from noise receptors. 

Noise and vibration impacts would be minimized by:
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-66

▪ properly muffling all construction equipment, e.g. using specially quieted equipment with enclosed 

engines and/or high-performance mufflers;

▪ avoiding impact pile driving near noise-sensitive areas, where possible, e.g. using sonic or vibratory 

pile drivers in lieu of impact pile drivers where conditions permit their use;

▪ locating construction equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive areas;

▪ constructing temporary noise barriers, such as walls or piles of excavated material, between 

construction activities and noise-sensitive areas;

▪ shutting all motor panels during operation; and 

▪ avoiding nighttime construction near noise-sensitive areas, e.g. operating between the hours of 7:00 

a.m. and 6:00 p.m., whenever possible.

5.20.4 Hazardous Materials and Construction Waste

Construction waste consists of materials and wastes generated during clearing, grubbing, milling and other 

activities. Hazardous materials may be discovered during demolition of structures and excavation. 

Prior to construction, health and safety and contingency plans would be developed. The plans would include 

procedures to protect construction workers and the public if hazardous materials are encountered during 

construction. If contaminants are encountered during construction, disposal would occur at facilities and in 

a manner approved by federal, state and local regulations. 

Generally, uncontaminated litter and trash would be collected and disposed of at landfill locations. Sanitary 

waste generated at the site would be removed by approved third party vendors and would be disposed of in 

a manner approved by state and local regulations.

5.20.5 Public Safety, Traffic, and Access

During construction, all local and through traffic would be adequately and safely accommodated. Overall, 

the Project would have limited traffic and access impacts on the public given the rural and low-density 

nature of the Study Area. Traffic and access impacts during construction include temporary lane or road 

closures and detours. Impacts could be minimized by:

▪ developing traffic management plans to maintain connectivity and reduce disruption to 

communities, activities, traffic, and circulation during construction; 

▪ implementing procurement specifications and incentives for construction contractors designed to 

reduce the duration and disruption of construction, such as placing restrictions on construction 

vehicle traffic and routes, hours of permitted construction activity, and advance public notification 

of all closures and expected travel delays; and

▪ conforming to standard construction practices.

Construction and operational strategies would be developed through coordination between FRA (should 

additional FRA funding be identified for construction), MDOT, and other interested agencies. Plans for 

maintenance of traffic would be developed by Project engineers during final design of the Project and in 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-67

accordance with the current edition of the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways. 

5.20.6 Visual Impacts

The Project would have no impacts on visual resources since most of construction would be in rural, 

undeveloped, industrial, or commercial areas. During construction, the view of construction equipment, 

construction lighting, and stockpile and/or borrow areas would negatively impact Project site aesthetics in 

those areas that are accessible to the public. Nighttime construction lighting impacts would be minimized 

by use of appropriate light and glare screening measures, including the use of downward cast lighting. Areas 

where vegetation is temporarily removed or disturbed for construction would be re-vegetated as quickly as 

possible with native vegetation. 

5.20.7 Energy Consumption

Temporary increases in energy consumption associated with construction activities include increased fuel 

use associated with manufacturing, truck traffic, and construction equipment. Energy consumption would

be minimized by developing and implementing a construction energy conservation plan; using newer, more 

energy efficient construction equipment and materials; planning efficient haul routes; and encouraging 

construction workers to carpool to and from work sites. 

5.20.8 Utility Service and Relocations

Prior to, or during construction, utilities in conflict with the Project would be relocated, modified, or 

protected in place. All modifications, relocations or adjustments would be coordinated with the affected 

utility owners/providers. Given the rural nature of the Study Area, impacts to public utilities would be 

limited.

5.20.9 Wildlife and Wetlands Impacts

During construction, ground cover along the rail corridor right-of-way would be temporarily disturbed and 

nearly all vegetative species would be removed. As a result, most animal species would temporarily relocate 

away from the area as clearing begins. Use of best management practices would control soil erosion. Areas 

where vegetation is temporarily removed or disturbed for construction would be re-vegetated as quickly as 

possible with native vegetation.

5.20.10 Cultural/Archeological Resources Encountered During Construction

Based on the results of the Phase 1 Archaeological and Cultural Historic Reconnaissance survey, there are 

four cultural resources over 50 years of age in the Project right-of-way (e.g., bridges, culverts, rail and 

roads) that could be potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historical Places (NRHP). 

However, it has been recommended that no further archaeological work is required. Construction activities 

for this section of the Project would be rail and tie replacement and surface and lining the track. In addition, 

the timber trestle over Alligator Branch was recently closed by NS and it is anticipated that this bridge 

would be replaced. In the event that artifacts or sites are discovered during construction, construction 

workers would be informed of how to recognize archaeological and cultural resources, and of the policies 

for handling discoveries of these resources, including deterrence of casual collection of artifacts by 

construction workers. If unanticipated cultural materials (e.g., large, intact artifacts or animal bones; large 

soils stains or patterns of soil stains; buried brick or stone structures; clusters of brick or stone) or human 

skeletal remains are discovered during construction activities, then the appropriate construction engineer 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-68

shall be immediately notified and all work in the vicinity of the discovered materials shall cease until an 

evaluation can be made by the MDOT archaeologist in consultation with the MDAH/SHPO.

5.20.11 Borrow Pits and Spoil Sites

Borrow activities would include providing fill for the development of the proposed rail embankment and 

grade-separations. Only approved borrow materials would be utilized for the Project. Borrow activities 

would occur in conformance with federal, state and local regulations. The following measures would be 

implemented for borrow pits and spoil sites: 

▪ evaluation of borrow sites to incorporate input of federal, state and local agencies as necessary; 

▪ early coordination and consultation to allow for evaluation of potential borrow sites to determine 

them satisfactory for use from an archaeological standpoint; 

▪ disposal of unnecessary excavated materials in a manner consistent with federal, state and local 

regulations (including no disposal into wetlands and waterways)

Prior to the start of borrow activities, all required permits would be obtained, including evidence of 

mitigation or control plans for potential adverse environmental impacts.

5.21 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 40 CFR Part 1500, defines secondary or indirect effects as follows: 

“[C]aused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing 

effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other 

natural systems, including ecosystems.” (40 CFR § 1508.8)

Whereas direct effects generally occur within the Project right-of-way, indirect effects often occur outside 

of the Project right-of-way and can even occur outside of the Study Area. For example, indirect effects may 

include induced changes to land use resulting in resource impacts, such as induced development in wetlands 

resulting in habitat fragmentation and/or loss of wetland functionality.

The Council on Environmental Quality defines cumulative impacts as follows: 

“[T]he impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a long period of time” (40 CFR § 1508.7).

Cumulative effects include both direct and indirect effects that would result from the Project, as well as the 

effects from other projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) not related to or caused 

by the Project. The cumulative effects of an action may be undetectable when viewed in the individual 

context of direct and indirect effects, but they can add to other impacts and eventually lead to a measurable 

environmental change.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-69

The cumulative effects analysis considers the magnitude of the cumulative effect on the resource, as well 

as the general overall condition, stability, or vitality of the resource and the trend of that condition. Laws, 

regulations, policies, or other factors that may change or sustain the resource trend are considered to 

determine if more or less stress on the resource is likely in the foreseeable future. Opportunities to mitigate 

adverse cumulative effects on a stressed resource, or a resource that would continue to be stressed are 

presented.

The following seven-step evaluation process was used for the cumulative effects analysis (CEA) using an 

efficient, consistent, and logical method. The results of the CEA are described in sections by resource 

following the description of the seven steps.

Step 1: Identify Resources to Consider in the CEA

Evaluation of cumulative effects was completed for the resources that were found to be most directly or 

indirectly affected by the Project. Resources that were not found to be significantly affected by the Project

were not considered in the CEA. The resources and environmental effects categories evaluated in this CEA 

include socioeconomics; noise and vibration; wetlands, streams, and other waters of the U.S.; and 

floodplains. 

Step 2: Define the Geographic and Temporal Study Limits for Each Resource

The study timeframe considered for the CEA is from the 1960s to 2040. The 125,000-acre acoustical SSC 

acoustical buffer zone was established by NASA in the 1960s to enable testing of large engines for the 

Apollo Program and has since altered the development patterns of Hancock County. The year 2040 is based 

on the 2040 Mississippi United Long-Range Transportation Infrastructure Plan (MULTIPLAN 2040).116

Geographic study limits are defined for each resource selected in Step 1 to be evaluated as part of the CEA. 

The resource study limits are used for characterization of the health condition and trend for each resource 

and to determine the potential cumulative effects on a resource. 

Step 3: Describe the Current Status/Viability and Historical Context for Each Resource

The historical context and health of each resource is described and presented for each of the resources 

selected in Step 1. This information is important to establish the baseline condition and trend the resource 

is experiencing to be able to estimate the magnitude of the resource effect. The historical context is first 

described to provide an explanation of the factors that have caused the current health of the resource.

Step 4: Identify the Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Project

This step identifies the direct and indirect effects that could result from the proposed Project that may 

contribute to a cumulative effect when added to non-Project related effects. 

Step 5: Identify Other Reasonably Foreseeable Effects

A CEA requires consideration of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This step identifies 

other non-Project related effects, i.e., other actions that have caused the current health of resources and 

other reasonably foreseeable future projects that may impact future resource trends.

 

116 MDOT. 2040 Mississippi United Long-Range Transportation Infrastructure Plan. January 2016.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-70

Step 6: Identify and Assess Cumulative Impacts

This step considers the direct and indirect effects of the Project identified in Step 4 together with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects identified in Step 5. The magnitude of the 

cumulative effect is determined by comparing the effect to the health and trend of the affected resource. 

Step 7: Assess the Need for Mitigation

Opportunities for mitigation of adverse effects, where applicable, are discussed for each resource. These 

are not meant to be mitigation measures that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Mississippi 

Department of Transportation (MDOT), Port Bienville Railroad (PBRR), or other agencies would, or have 

the authority to implement. Rather, they are intended to disclose steps or actions that could be undertaken 

by local, state and federal agencies and organizations to minimize the potential cumulative effect on each 

resource health and trend.

5.21.1 Land Use CEA

Study Limits

The study limits for the CEA for this resource is generally Hancock County, and a portion of Pearl River 

County, near Nicholson, Mississippi.

Historical Context and Current Conditions

Since the creation of the SSC acoustical buffer zone, land use within the zone is limited. No development 

is allowed and only limited land use changes can occur within this area. Areas to the north and south of the 

SSC acoustical buffer zone are the only areas within the Study Area that have the potential of being 

impacted.

At the northern end of the proposed PBRR extension is 5.3 miles of existing, Norfolk Southern (NS) railroad 

right-of-way (formerly connected to SSC) near Nicholson, Mississippi. Land uses within this area consist 

of industrial, commercial and residential. On the southern end of the Study Area, the proposed Project is 

located on new location until tying back into the Port Bienville Railroad. This area is identified as 

commercial/industrial land uses.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect land use changes from the proposed Project would be limited to the northern and 

southern section. Since the northern section ties into the existing rail line, no land use changes are 

anticipated in this area. The southern portions of the Study Area where development can occur, would 

include new development opportunities for the commercial and industrial areas. This development is 

consistent with Hancock County land use plans. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Future land use changes with the highest potential to occur would be mainly due to potential development 

at Port Bienville Industrial Park. As described previously the industrial park will receive $8 million for 

improvement to the infrastructure that include rail expansion. 

It is anticipated that planned projects of this nature would generate positive benefits for this area and region. 

Expansion would require additional opportunities, new jobs, and additional housing. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-71

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the proposed Project and any other future development on the regions land uses 

are expected to be limited to the southern portion of the Study Area; these changes are anticipated to be 

beneficial for the area and region and are consistent with the planned uses of the area.

Mitigation

Mitigation of cumulative land use impacts is not necessary because the cumulative effects are expected to 

be limited and potentially beneficial.

5.21.2 Socioeconomic CEA

Study Limits

The study area for the CEA for this resource is generally Hancock County, Mississippi. Pearl River County 

was not included in the assessment because the alignment follows an existing rail line through the county 

and changes in Pearl River are not expected. 

Historical Context and Current Health

The SSC was created in the early 1960s, allowing NASA to test rocket engines in Hancock County. To 

create the 13,800-acre “fee” area owned by the federal government and the surrounding 125,000-acre SSC 

acoustical buffer zone, five small towns were relocated and every house and building in the SSC acoustical 

buffer zone and fee area had to be moved or destroyed.117 Both private companies and public agencies, 

including the Navy’s Meteorology and Oceanography Command, have relocated to the area creating a 

concentration of research and technology.118 The Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission began 

development of the Port Bienville Industrial Park and Port of Bienville in 1967.119 Several casinos are now 

located in Hancock County as the result of the state legislature allowing casino gambling on the coast since 

1992.120

Hancock County has faced transforming conditions in the last decade as it has worked to recover from the 

effects of Hurricane Katrina and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the economic consequences of 

these disasters. The Port Bienville Industrial Park and SSC played a pivotal role in the recovery of this 

region, sustaining employment and attracting new investments and jobs that have helped to rebuild and 

enhance the area’s economy. The Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission has identified four major 

growth sectors for the county: aerospace and aviation; cargo-oriented development; polymers and advanced 

composite materials; and geospatial technology. In addition to these four target industries, manufacturing 

and exports continue to represent a significant opportunity for future growth.121

Jindal Tubular USA LLC, one of the largest manufacturers of large diameter steel pipe, invested $10 million 

in their plant expansion for a production line to manufacture mortar-lined pipe for drinking water. Since 

 

117 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/pdf/697602main_October_12_Lagniappe.pdf, accessed on September 6, 2016

118 Gulf Regional Planning Commission. 2013 County Overview: Hancock County.

119 Port Bienville Economic Development Benefits and Opportunities Analysis. Presented to Mississippi Department of Transportation in 

collaboration with Federal Railroad Administration and Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission. Prepared by CDM Smith in association 

with HDR. September 19, 2013.

120Gulf Regional Planning Commission. 2013 County Overview: Hancock County.

121 Port Bienville Economic Development Benefits and Opportunities Analysis. Presented to Mississippi Department of Transportation in 

collaboration with Federal Railroad Administration and Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission. Prepared by CDM Smith in association 

with HDR. September 19, 2013.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-72

beginning operations in August 2015, Jindal has increased employment at its Port Bienville Industrial Park 

plant from less than 50 to 200 personnel.

122

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect socioeconomic effects of the Project include the impact on the local and regional 

economy due to enhanced development opportunities at the Port Bienville Industrial Park. These impacts 

are generally beneficial, such as increased tax revenue from developed land, increased household income 

and employment opportunities from new commercial development and increased income from construction 

of both the rail line itself and potential new development. Long-term employment opportunities could be 

increased as the growth following improvements in rail transportation. Population growth could follow 

employment growth and could increase additional demand for housing and services. 

However, because 76% of the Study Area is within the SSC acoustical buffer zone, the demographics of 

the area, including population make-up (race, age, disability) and general housing characteristics are not 

expected to experience appreciable changes as a result of the Project. Education levels would not be 

affected by the proposed Project. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Future development initiatives proposed at Port Bienville Industrial Park and Stennis International Airport 

are briefly described below.123

DAK Americas, which is one of the largest plastic-resin manufacturers in the U.S., has announced plans 

for a new manufacturing plant at their existing site at the industrial park. The plant would include $40 

million of direct investment while adding 87 new full-time jobs. 

In December 2015, it was announced that the Port Bienville Industrial Park will receive $8 million in 

RESTORE Act funding (Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill) for the construction of a trans-load dock and 

ancillary infrastructure improvements including rail line expansion. The Project would improve Port users’ 

ability to move product between modes of transportation and would increase Port throughput in support of 

industry onsite and offsite.

It was also announced In December 2015 that the Stennis International Airport will receive $2 million in 

RESTORE Act funding (Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill) for Phase II of the Terminal Hangar project to 

construct a new 24,000 square foot hangar. The new hangar will also accommodate maintenance, repair 

and overhaul operations.

Each of these planned projects would generate positive socioeconomic benefits. New and expanding 

manufacturing facilities would require additional employees and services, thus generating jobs and income. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative socioeconomic effects of the proposed Project and any other future development are 

expected to be beneficial due to the potential for economic growth that could provide additional and better 

paying jobs. 

 

122Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). 2015. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 

2015. Prepared by Finance Department, Janet E. Sacks, Chief Financial Officer.

123 Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). 2015. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended September 

30, 2015. Prepared by Finance Department, Janet E. Sacks, Chief Financial Officer. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-73

Mitigation

Mitigation of cumulative socioeconomic effects is not necessary because the cumulative effects are

expected to be beneficial.

5.21.3 Environmental Justice

Study Limits

The study area for the CEA for this resource is generally Hancock County and the portion of Pearl River 

County, Mississippi that falls within the Study Area.

Historical Context and Current Conditions

Existing communities are located to the north and south of the SSC acoustical buffer zone. Since 

development is limited within the SSC acoustical buffer zone these are the only areas within the Study Area 

that have the potential of being impacted.

At the northern section of the Study Area, the proposed Project is located on the former Norfolk Southern 

(NS) railroad right-of-way near Nicholson, Mississippi. Residential areas exist as the alignment emerges 

out of the acoustical buffer zone and communities begin developing around the Project as it nears 

Nicholson. On the southern end of the Study Area, the proposed Project is located on new location until 

tying back into the Port Bienville Railroad. This area is identified as mainly commercial/industrial area 

with some single-family homes east of the proposed Project along Old Lower Bay Road.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect environmental justice impacts from the proposed Project would be limited to the 

northern and southern sections. Since the northern section ties into the existing rail line, no impacts to 

minority or low-income populations are anticipated. Impacts to the southern portion of the Study Area 

would include development opportunities for the commercial and industrial areas. Increase development 

would potentially provide job opportunities both short and term employment. These types of impacts are 

generally beneficial allowing for new opportunities for these communities.

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Future development with the highest potential to occur would be mainly development within Port Bienville 

Industrial Park. Development within the industrial park would not cause any relocations of EJ households 

or within the community. 

It is anticipated that planned projects of this nature would generate positive benefits for this area and region. 

Expansion would require additional opportunities, new jobs, and additional housing. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative land use and anticipated economic development that the Project would support are expected 

to be limited to the southern portion of the Study Area. These effects are likely to be beneficial for the area 

and region by providing additional jobs, which would be available to environmental justice populations 

within the area.

Mitigation

Mitigation of cumulative environmental justice impacts is not necessary because the cumulative effects are 

expected to be potentially beneficial to these populations.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-74

5.21.4 Noise and Vibration CEA

Study Limits

The study area for the noise and vibration CEA is the area within the vicinity of the proposed rail alignment 

and Port Bienville Industrial Park. Noise and vibration are localized conditions, and the Study Area has 

three distinctly different areas from a noise and vibration standpoint—the northern end of the rail alignment 

in Nicholson, Mississippi near U.S. Highway 11, the central portion of the rail alignment within the SSC 

acoustical buffer zone, and the southern end of the rail alignment in the vicinity of the Port Bienville 

Industrial Park.

Historical Context and Current Health

At the northern end of the proposed PBRR extension is 5.3 miles of existing, Norfolk Southern (NS) railroad 

right-of-way (formerly connected to SSC) near Nicholson, Mississippi. Nicholson is located along the 

existing NS route from New Orleans, Louisiana to Meridian, Mississippi that is used by both freight and 

Amtrak passenger trains, so residents near Nicholson are accustomed to the sound and vibration of passing 

trains.

Centrally located within the Study Area is the SSC, a NASA facility. The SSC is surrounded by a 125,000-

acre acoustical SSC acoustical buffer zone which makes up the majority of the Study Area. The 125,000-

acre acoustical SSC acoustical buffer zone surrounding SSC was established by NASA in the 1960s to 

enable testing of large engines for the Apollo Program. Following the Apollo Program missions to the moon 

in the late 1960s and early 1970s, all of the main engines used on 135 space shuttle missions from 1981 to 

2011 were tested at SSC.124 Recently, the center has been testing the engines that will be used to power 

NASA’s new Space Launch System rocket for the journey to Mars.125 Commercial engines are also tested 

at the NASA facility. The SSC acoustical buffer zone remains critical to the current and future missions of 

NASA and the resident agencies at the SSC, and is considered a national asset.126 Development or the 

construction of any standing structures is strictly prohibited within the SSC acoustical buffer zone and is 

enforced by SSC. 

On the southern end of the Study Area, existing freight rail service to Port Bienville and the industrial park 

is provided by CSX Transportation (CSX). The Port Bienville Railroad connects to CSX’s mainline 

approximately 5 miles east of the Port near Ansley, Mississippi. Since this commercial/industrial area has 

existing freight rail service, employees and residents are accustomed to the sound and vibration of passing 

trains.

Direct and Indirect Effects

All of the Project’s direct noise and vibration impacts are projected to occur at the northern-most end of the 

Study Area near the U.S. 11 crossing. In that area, direct effects of the Build Alternative would include 

potential noise impacts at 14 receptors. Twelve receptors have potential to experience moderate noise 

impacts and two receptors have potential to experience severe noise impacts. Three receptors have potential 

to experience vibration impacts. Two of the receptors with vibration impacts are the same two receptors

 

124www.nasa.gov/press/2013/october/stennis-officials-issue-buffer-zone-reminder/, accessed on September 6, 2016 

125www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-continues-progress-on-the-journey-to-mars-with-latest-rs-25-rocket-engine-test, accessed on 

September 6, 2016

126 www.nasa.gov/press/2013/october/stennis-officials-issue-buffer-zone-reminder/, accessed on September 6, 2016
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-75

with severe noise impacts. No development is expected to be induced near Nicholson, Mississippi by the 

proposed Project, so no indirect noise and vibration impacts are expected in that area.

In the central portion of the Study Area, there are no noise- or vibration-sensitive receptors within the SSC 

acoustical buffer zone, so the Project would have no direct or indirect noise and vibration impacts in that 

area. 

In the southern portion of the Study Area where the track alignment extends and terminates beyond the 

limits of the SSC acoustical buffer zone, no noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors were found within the 

noise and vibration contours, so the Project would have no direct noise and vibration impacts in that area. 

The analysis of direct noise and vibration impacts includes future commercial development induced by the 

proposed Project in Port Bienville or at the Port Bienville Industrial Park and the future train volumes 

needed to serve those facilities. Therefore, development induced by the proposed Project has already been 

accounted for in the noise and vibration impacts and no additional indirect noise and vibration impacts 

would be expected to occur. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

By 2040, a 61 percent increase in cargo flow is projected within the state, especially along state-owned 

highways near ports.127 New industrial development in the southern portion of the Study Area could create 

additional noise and vibration from construction, manufacturing, and freight traffic, however, most of 

Mississippi’s population growth is expected to occur in major cities and along the Gulf Coast, not within 

the Study Area, so potential effects of other non-Project related development within the Study Area is not 

expected to be significant.

Cumulative Effects

The SSC acoustical buffer zone reduces the harmful effects of very loud, and very low-frequency, sound 

waves produced in the rocket testing area during engine tests. Since the SSC acoustical buffer zone 

surrounding SSC prevents development of habitable structures within its boundary, it also prevents 

cumulative effects related to noise and vibration within its boundary. 

Adverse cumulative noise and vibration effects in the Study Area outside the SSC acoustical SSC acoustical 

buffer zone are not anticipated because the areas directly impacted by the Project are different than the areas 

that could be impacted by unrelated development. With the exception of train events where noise from train 

horns and vibration from locomotives and rail cars exceed normal thresholds, noise and vibration levels 

would be consistent with those expected in rural and industrial areas.

Mitigation

FRA does not require mitigation for moderate noise impacts, because the magnitude of the change in noise 

levels or overall noise level is modest and not projected to substantially affect sleep or other activities. 

Some limited mitigation options will be explored where severe noise impacts are projected to occur such 

as eliminating locomotive horn use at the U.S. 11 at-grade crossing, retrofitting buildings with air 

conditioning and improved storm doors and windows, or negotiated settlements. There are limited practical 

means to mitigate ground-borne vibration impacts due to freight trains other than track and wheel 

maintenance programs. Mitigation measures for the Project will be finalized in the FEIS. 

 

127MDOT. 2040 Mississippi United Long-Range Transportation Infrastructure Plan. January 2016.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-76

5.21.5 Wetlands CEA

Study Limits

The study area for the wetlands CEA is the same as the Study Area. 

Historical Context and Current Health

Wetlands within the Study Area have been altered by silviculture practices, rail lines, interstate highways 

and other roadways, bridges, transmission line and pipeline right-of-way, and development near SSC, 

Stennis International Airport, Nicholson, Pearlington, and Port Bienville. Several existing wetland 

mitigation sites are located within the Study Area, including the Dead Tiger Mitigation Site, Texas Flat 

Mitigation Site, Devils Swamp Mitigation Site and Lower Devils Swamp Mitigation Site. Expansion of the 

Lower Devils Swamp Mitigation Site is proposed. Although Study Area wetlands are not of the highest 

quality due to anthropogenic disturbances, they still provide significant filtration and flood mitigation 

functions.

Within the Study Area, three water bodies are listed in the final 2014 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water 

Bodies128 and the draft 2016 303(d) report129. Those three water bodies—Turtleskin Creek, Dead Tiger 

Creek and Catahoula Creek—are listed for biological impairment. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 

have not been set for these streams, and the “TMDL Priority” is listed as “Low” in the draft 2016 303(d) 

report. Of the three impaired water bodies within the Study Area, Turtleskin Creek is the only stream within 

the proposed Project right-of-way.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Approximately 173 acres of wetlands and 2,482 linear feet of streams have the potential to be directly or 

indirectly impacted by the proposed Project. Because the proposed Project would not appreciably diminish 

the availability of functional wetlands and other waters, there would be no fragmentation of wetland 

vegetative communities and; therefore, short-term and long-term impacts would be localized and minor. 

Since the proposed Project is only anticipated to enhance opportunities for development at the Port Bienville 

Industrial Park, and not to induce development in areas outside the Industrial Park, indirect impacts on 

wetlands as the result of induced development are not anticipated. 

Of the nine streams crossed by the Build Alternative, Turtleskin Creek is the only stream designated as 

impaired. The proposed rail alignment would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to Turtleskin Creek 

as well as other water bodies and would not hinder any MDEQ restoration plans for Turtleskin Creek. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Future projects within the Study Area include the Port Bienville Industrial Park and Stennis International 

Airport expansion projects previously described in the Socioeconomics CEA section, as well as short-range 

and long-range rail and roadway network projects, such as widening I-10, double-tracking CSX mainline 

to accommodate passenger rail, and other infrastructure improvements. Any new development within 

wetlands would be regulated by federal, state, and local policies and would be subject to Sections 404 and 

401 of the CWA, which regulates impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Significant adverse 

impacts to waters of the U.S. from other reasonably foreseeable developments are not anticipated.

 

128 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Division of the Office of Pollution Control. 2014. Mississippi 2014 

Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. Final July 24, 2014. 

129 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Division of the Office of Pollution Control. 2016. Mississippi 2016 

Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. Draft February 8, 2016.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-77

Cumulative Effects

Significant adverse cumulative effects to waters of the U.S. are not anticipated. Any new development 

within wetlands would have to comply with Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA, which regulates the filling 

of and encroachment on these resources, and would require mitigation to offset impacts. Given the 

regulatory requirements governing impacts to waters of the U.S., and the mitigation measures discussed in 

the following section, substantial cumulative effects to these resources are not anticipated.

Mitigation

The compensatory mitigation requirements under Section 404 would provide for the replacement of the 

functions of wetlands and waters impacted by the proposed Project. Because adverse cumulative effects to 

waters of the U.S. are not anticipated, no other mitigation is proposed. 

5.21.6 Floodplains CEA

Study Limits

The study area for the floodplains CEA is the same as the Study Area.

Historical Context and Current Health

The majority of the Port Bienville Industrial Park and surrounding areas in southern Mississippi are located 

near the Gulf of Mexico within the 100-year floodplain, which makes them susceptible to flooding. In 2005, 

Hurricane Katrina heavily damaged Port Bienville and other ports and towns along the Gulf of Mexico. 

Damage to port structures included warehouses, berths, docks, offices, access roads, and rail lines. The 

ports also lost equipment and, in the case of the Port Bienville, all business records, including those stored 

on computers.

130

Direct and Indirect Effects

Approximately 97 acres of the 200-foot Survey Corridor falls within Zones A and AE (1 percent annual 

chance flood, or “100-year”) and 327 acres falls in Zone X (0.2 percent annual chance flood, or “500-year”).

Design features to minimize impacts to the floodplain would be made during the design phase. Any 

enhanced development opportunities resulting from the Project would likely occur near Port Bienville and 

would be subject to the local ordinances governing development within floodplains. Therefore, no indirect 

Project impacts on floodplains are expected.

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Future projects within the Study Area include the Port Bienville Industrial Park and Stennis International 

Airport expansion projects previously described in the Socioeconomics CEA section, as well as short-range 

and long-range rail and roadway network projects, such as widening I-10, double-tracking the CSX

mainline to accommodate passenger rail, and other infrastructure improvements. Those projects and any 

other development would be subject to the local ordinances governing development within floodplains. The 

primary constraint to development in floodplains within the central portion of Hancock County is the SSC 

acoustical buffer zone that prevents development within its borders. Therefore, floodplain impacts within 

the Study Area are expected to be minimal.

 

130 http://www.peer.state.ms/487.html, accessed on September 6, 2016
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-78

Cumulative Effects

Although new development within the Study Area may impact floodplains, floodplains in the direct vicinity 

of the proposed rail Project are either not available for development or are not desirable for development. 

While county and local ordinances do not prohibit development within the floodplain, they limit and 

regulate development to eliminate or reduce potential damage from future floods. Communities must also 

regulate development in floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. Based 

on the regulation of development in floodplains and floodways, adverse cumulative effects to floodplains 

and floodways are not anticipated. 

Mitigation

Mitigation of cumulative floodplain effects is not necessary because cumulative effects are not anticipated.

5.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of 

Resources

Irreversible and Irretrievable resources are defined as natural, cultural, and human resources that cannot be 

recovered or reversed due to the impact upon the resource. Irreversible would mean that the impact would 

be permanent and could never be retrieved. Irretrievable applies to resources that would only be temporarily 

impacted while being used for another purpose. 

The construction of a new rail line on new alignment would require irreversible and irretrievable impacts 

on various resources. The resources would include wetlands, streams, farmland, cultural resources, land 

use, construction materials, labor, financial, transportation, fuel, and energy as some examples.

No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not require any irreversible and irretrievable 

impacts on this area. Growth would still be limited by the lack of dependable transportation options and 

high costs associated with only one rail line to service this area.

Build Alternative. The construction of the Build Alternative would require the conversion of 

approximately 173 acres of wetland for the proposed rail line. This conversion would be considered not 

retrievable since its natural state would be lost during the conversion. Other non-retrievable resources would 

include, funding for the project, labor, construction materials, energy, and petroleum base fuels and 

products. 

The conversion of land use from agriculture to a transportation use would be considered a retrievable 

resource due to fact that if the rail line was abandoned and removed there would be the potential to convert 

the area back to an agriculture use.

It is anticipated that the commitment of these resources both irreversible and irretrievable would provide a 

direct benefit to the economic development for Port Bienville, Hancock and Pearl River Counties, 

regionally, and statewide. The economic growth and opportunities would provide new jobs and additional 

growth for this area. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-79

5.23 Relationship Between Short-Term Impacts and

Long-Term Benefits

The construction of the proposed rail line would account for the majority of the short-term impacts. These 

would consist of direct impacts to wetlands, streams, and farmlands. There would also be a short-term 

impact/benefit to the economy associated with construction activities including increase in jobs, housing, 

services, and food. There would likely be a higher demand for construction materials and equipment.

The long-term benefits would include potential growth for the counties, region and statewide associated 

with the availability of dual Class I rail service. Access to dual Class I rail service is a key factor providing

economic competitiveness for existing businesses, and a significant factor for many companies considering 

sites for new or expanded business operations. Since industrial parks providing dual Class I rail services 

are a scarce resource, the long-term benefit for this Project would be to position Hancock County and Port 

Bienville Industrial Park for increased development and investment opportunities.

5.24 Summary of Impacts

Impacts would occur in both the Build and No-build scenarios. The primary impacts from the No-Build 

Alternative would be the failure to meet the purpose and need for this Project and provide conditions to 

support economic development. Existing conditions would remain the same and the economic benefits

associated with the Build Alternative would not be realized. The Build Alternative would impact both the 

natural and human environment. As summarized in Table 5.20 the primary impacts would include streams, 

wetlands, farmlands, floodplains, noise, vibration, pipelines, bridges, at-grade crossings, and construction 

costs. However, the Build Alternative would also result in potential economic benefits and opportunities

to the region such as:

▪ Lower rail rates for existing businesses, enabling these companies to be more competitive and 

increase sales and production, creating additional employment and investment in Hancock County;

▪ Increased job opportunities at companies within Port Bienville Industrial Park in the five‐year 

period following the completion of the proposed PBRR to meet increased customer demand;

▪ Support additional employment and new investment in plants and equipment from existing 

businesses and the location of new companies that require or would benefit from access to dual 

Class 1 rail services;

▪ Allow businesses in the Port Bienville Industrial Park greater opportunities for increasing exports 

to some regions.131

 

131 Port Bienville Feasibility Study, September 19, 2013.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-80

Table 5.20: Summary of Impacts and Costs

Impact Category (Units) No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Cultural Resources (Sites) N/A 0

Farmland (Acres) N/A 222 

Noise (No. of sensitive receptors) N/A 2 Severe/12 Moderate

Vibration (No. of sensitive receptors) N/A 3

Residential Relocations (No.) 0 0

Hazardous Materials (sites) N/A 1

Business Relocations (No.) 0 0

Environmental Justice Impacted Census Blocks (No.) N/A 4

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Streams (LF) N/A 2,482

Wetlands (Acres) N/A 171.58

Other Waters (Acres) N/A 2.01

Floodplains (Acres) N/A 96.74

Threatened and Endangered Species (affect/impact) N/A 7

ENGINEERING

Gas Pipelines (Crossings No.) N/A 8

Railroad Bridges Over Roadways (No.) N/A 4

Railroad Bridges Over Streams (No.) N/A 2

SAFETY AND MOBILITY

At-Grade Crossings (No.) N/A 22

Construction Costs N/A $ 118,151,058
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-81

5.25 Required Permits and Coordination

Table 5.21 provides a summary of likely permitting requirements and other work that would likely need to

be accomplished during the design phase prior to construction. Additional federal, state, and/or local 

permitting requirements may be identified during future phases of the Project.

Based on the assessment of Project impacts and/or agency coordination, no permits or approvals would be 

required related to the following:

▪ General Conformity Program under the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B – The Study 

Area is in attainment area with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and has no 

general conformity determination obligations.

▪ Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 USC § 303 – No parks, 

recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites would be impacted by the 

Project.

▪ Section 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC § 401 – The Study Area does not 

include any navigation projects under USACE Section 9 or 10 authority.

▪ Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC § 408 (“Section 408”) – The Study Area 

does not include any federal flood control facilities.

▪ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 USC § 1801, et seq., 50 CFR 

Part 600 – Based on agency coordination, the Study Area does not contain any critical habitat or 

endangered marine species managed by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5-82

Table 5.21: Impacts/Actions Requiring Permits and/or Approvals

Impact or 

Action

Applicable 

Laws/Regulations Agency Sites or Actions Requiring Permits and/or Approvals

Wetlands/ 

Waters of the 

U.S.

Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA), 33 USC 

§1251 et seq.

USACE

Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

waters of the U.S. Impacts that require a Section 404 permit include, 

but are not limited to, placement of fill into wetlands for rail beds, 

placement of culverts and pipes within the ordinary high water mark of 

a stream and alteration of channel morphology. Bridge construction 

over creeks that does not involve dredging or filling does not require a 

permit as no improvements take place in waters of the U.S. Some rail 

bridge piers may need to be placed in stream beds. Potential wetland 

impacts have been identified within the Project right-of-way. 

Water Quality Section 401 of the CWA, 33 

USC §1251 et seq. MDEQ

Section 401 requires a state certification that a discharge to waters of 

the U.S. complies with other provisions of the CWA. The USACE 404 

permit application prepared also serves as an application for water 

quality certification. MDEQ will receive notice from USACE that an 

application has been made. The proposed track alignment crosses one 

Section 303(d) impaired stream.

Stormwater Section 402 of the CWA, 33 

USC §1251 et seq. MDEQ

Section 402 requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit for discharges into waters of the U.S. Prior to 

construction, an application for a general permit for construction 

activities under the NPDES would be prepared. As part of the permit 

application, a detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 

would be prepared to control stormwater runoff and erosion at 

construction sites. The State is in the process of reissuing Mississippi’s 

Large Construction Storm Water General Permit (MSR10), which 

pertains to land-disturbing activities of 5 acres or more. 

Farmland

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act (FPPA) – Subtitle I of 

Title XV, Section 1539-1549

USDA/

NRCS

Impacts to farmland (prime), farmland (prime if drained), and farmland 

(statewide importance) have been identified. NRCS completes a 

Farmland Conversion Form (CPA-106) for all federal funding projects to 

assess potential irreversible impacts to farmland.

Threatened/ 

Endangered 

Species

Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) of 1973, 16 USC §1531 

et seq., 50 CFR Part 17

USFWS

The Project is not expected to impact any critical habitat. If any impacts 

were to be identified, mitigation measures would be determined in 

consultation with USFWS prior to construction.

Coastal Zone Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, 16 USC §1451

MDMR 

Office of 

Coastal 

Resources

The MDMR will review the proposed rail Project based upon the 

provisions of the MCP and Section 307 of the CZMA of 1972, as 

amended, to determine if the activities are consistent to the maximum 

extent practicable with the MCP. If so, MDMR will grant consistency 

certification.

Cultural 

Resources

Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended, 

16 USC §470 et seq.

MDAH SHPO

Involvement with historic sites and districts is being coordinated with 

the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Mississippi 

Department of Archives and History (MDAH). A total of four cultural 

resources were identified as potentially being eligible for listing on the 

National Register or Historical Places (NRHP).

Floodplain

NFIP; Executive Orders 

11988 and 11990 (SOV 

response dated May 12, 

2015).

FEMA/

Local 

floodplain 

administrators

Encroachment into floodways would be coordinated with the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Bridges, pipes, and box 

culverts must be designed in accordance with appropriate floodplain 

impact requirements per FRA, MDOT, FHWA, and local agencies. Prior 

to construction, community floodplain administrators will be contacted 

for the review and possible permit requirements.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6-1

6.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The public involvement and agency coordination process is a key component of the Project and provides a 

forum to share Project information with resource and regulatory agencies the individuals who live and work 

in this area; to listen to ideas and concerns; and to incorporate input received is an important step in the 

study process.

6.1 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Plan

The purpose of the Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Plan is to define the process by which the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) would 

communicate information about this Project to federal, state and local agencies, and to the public. The plan 

also identifies how input from the public and agencies will be solicited and considered.

The coordination plan:

▪ Describes the early coordination efforts conducted during Phase 1;

▪ Identifies potential cooperating and participating agencies to be involved in agency coordination;

▪ Establishes the timing and form of agency involvement in defining the Project’s purpose and need 

and study area, the range of alternatives to be investigated and methodologies, as well reviewing 

documents;

▪ Establishes the timing and form of public involvement in defining the Project’s purpose and need 

and study area and the range of alternatives to be investigated, providing input on issues of concern 

and environmental features, and commenting on the findings presented; and 

▪ Describes the communication methods that will be implemented to inform stakeholders and the 

public about the Project.

Appendix H contains the Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Plan.

6.2 Agency Coordination

6.2.1 Phase 1

During the Feasibility Study, two agency meetings were held on August 23, 2012 and December 18, 2012 

at MDOT. These meetings provided a Project and study area overview and collected input on the Alignment 

Alternatives Research Tool (AART) data sets, including the ranking of natural resources and initial 

alignments. 

Representatives from the following agencies attended those meetings:

▪ MDOT, 

▪ FRA, 

▪ NASA, 

▪ Hancock County Ports and Harbor Commission (HCPHC), 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6-2

▪ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

▪ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

▪ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), 

▪ Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Park (MDWFP), 

▪ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 

▪ Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH).

6.2.2 EIS Kick-off Meeting 

The initial coordination meeting was held on June 24, 2014 at the MDOT Administration Building at 401 

North West Street in Jackson, Mississippi. The meeting was conducted to initiate the Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Project, provide background on the Project, introduce the Project team, and discuss 

initial Project steps. Two representatives from the FRA and three representatives from MDOT were in 

attendance.

6.2.3 Notice of Intent

FRA is the lead federal agency for the Port Bienville Railroad Project, in cooperation with MDOT. In 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS 

was published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2015. No comments were received in response to the NOI.

6.2.4 Agency Scoping Meeting

Prior to the scoping meetings, scoping letters were mailed to all applicable federal and state agencies and/or 

officials requesting initial comments on the Project and inviting them to attend the scoping meeting.

The agency scoping meeting was held on August 19, 2015 at MDOT Administration Building in Jackson, 

Mississippi.

The purpose of these meetings was to introduce the agencies to the Project and to present the findings of 

the Phase 1 – Feasibility Study.

132 Representatives from the following agencies were in attendance:

▪ MDOT, 

▪ FRA, 

▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

▪ NASA, 

▪ HCPHC, 

▪ USACE, 

▪ USFWS, 

▪ MDEQ, 

▪ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

▪ Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 

▪ MDWFP, and 

▪ EPA. 

 

132 Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study, September 19, 2013
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6-3

Agency comments suggested simplification of the Purpose and Need and questions about alignments 

through Stennis Space Center Fee Area. No formal letters were received from agencies during the scoping 

period. Sign in sheets and meeting notes are found in Appendix H.

6.2.5 Cooperating Agencies and Participating Agencies

Following the Agency Scoping Meeting, FRA distributed invitation letters to agencies with regulatory 

approvals or permits (February 3, 2016) inviting them to become cooperating agencies in the Project

development process (Appendix H, Agency Letters). Cooperating Agencies are defined as any federal 

agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary authority over the proposed action, jurisdiction by 

law, or special expertise with respect to the environmental impacts expected to result from the proposed

Project. 

The Surface Transportation Board (STB), National Marine Fisheries Service, EPA, and USFWS, have 

accepted invitations to be cooperating agencies for the Project. 

In addition, MDOT sent letters to four additional agencies inviting them to become participating agencies 

for the Project. Participating agencies are those that may have an interest in the Project and are afforded an 

opportunity for involvement in the development of the proposed Project. Participating agencies may also 

provide access to information integral to understanding and assessing the potential impacts and benefits of 

the Project. Invitations were extended to MDEQ, Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

(MDAH), MDWFP and Mississippi Department of Marine Resources.

6.2.6 Tribal Coordination

FRA and MDOT have initiated coordination with Native American Tribes. The tribes were sent Project

information, maps and GIS data related to the study area. 

The following federally recognized Native American tribes were contacted:

▪ Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

▪ Chickasaw Nation

▪ Jena Band of Choctaw

▪ Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana, Inc.

▪ Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

▪ Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma

▪ Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

▪ Muscogee Creek Nation

The Muscogee Creek Nation responded that they had no objections to the Project. The Muscogee Creek 

Nation, Alabama Coushatta Tribe and Jena Band of Choctaw requested the Cultural Resources studies, 

once completed. 

6.2.7 Agency Coordination Meetings 

An Agency Coordination Meeting was held on September 7, 2016 to provide an update on the Project and 

gather input from the agencies on the draft purpose and need for the Project and the alternative segment 

comparisons. The meeting was held at the MDOT Administration Building at 401 North West Street in 

Jackson, Mississippi. Representatives from the following agencies were in attendance:
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6-4

▪ MDOT, 

▪ FRA, 

▪ USACE, 

▪ EPA, 

▪ MDAH, 

▪ MDEQ, and 

▪ USFWS. 

An additional Agency Coordination Meeting was held on September 8, 2016 at the Port Bienville Industrial 

Park Training Center in Pearlington, Mississippi to provide an additional opportunity and location for 

agencies to participate in the Project. Representatives from the following agencies were in attendance:

▪ Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, 

▪ USFWS, 

▪ NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC), 

▪ Gulfport Regional Planning, 

▪ HCPHC, 

▪ MDOT Planning, and 

▪ Mississippi Secretary of State.

Sign-in sheets for both agency coordination meetings and copies of all comments received from the 

agencies are contained in Appendix H.

6.3 Stakeholder Involvement

6.3.1 Hancock County Ports and Harbor Commission – Update to Board 

Members

On July 25, 2016, the Project team attended an HCPHC board meeting to present the Project to new board 

members. The team provided Project background, an overview and the status on the EIS. 

6.3.2 Public Officials Meeting

A Project update meeting for public officials was held on September 8, 2016 at the Port Bienville Industrial 

Park Training Center in Pearlington, Mississippi. This meeting provided an overview of the Project and a 

status of the development process. Seven public officials attended this meeting. No written comments were 

received.

6.4 Public Involvement

6.4.1 Phase 1

During the Feasibility Study, a public information meeting was held on October 16, 2012 at the Bay St. 

Louis Public Library in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. The meeting provided an introduction to the Project and 

the studies being conducted. Approximately 30 people attended the meeting and four written comments 

supporting the Project were received. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6-5

6.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting

A Public Scoping Meeting was held on August 20, 2015 to gather input from the public on the needs for 

the Project and the concerns of the community. The meeting was held at the Port Bienville Industrial Park 

Training Center in Pearlington, Mississippi. The meeting was advertised in newspapers and the MDOT 

website. 

The public meeting was an open-house format. Meeting attendees were asked to sign-in and were given a 

handout that explained the Project, its history within the community and the environmental review process; 

the handout is included in Appendix H. Display boards with the preliminary segments identified in Phase 

1 and a matrix of impacts were set up for public review and discussion. The Phase 1 Feasibility Study was 

available for review. The Project team was available to answer questions and explain the display boards. 

Each person was also given a comment sheet to either fill out at the meeting or mail in during the public 

comment period.

Approximately 16 people attended the meeting and three comments supporting the Project were received 

during the comment period. Sign-in sheets and copies of all comments received from the public are 

contained in Appendix H.

6.4.3 Public Information Meeting

A public information meeting was held on September 8, 2016 at the Port Bienville Industrial Park Training 

Center in Pearlington, Mississippi. The meeting was advertised in newspapers and the MDOT website. In 

addition, property owners adjacent to proposed Project corridors were mailed letters inviting them to the 

meeting. 

The meeting was conducted in an open-house format and citizens attending this meeting were given 

information about the Project and a comment card. Display boards with the preliminary segments were set 

up for public review and discussion. Project team members were available to explain the alternatives, 

answer questions and receive comments. In addition, attendees were encouraged to provide Project team 

members with any additional information about the Study Area that was not represented on the maps.

Approximately 37 people attended the meeting and seven comment cards were received. Copies of the 

comment cards and correspondence received are included in Appendix H.

▪ Support for the Project - 4

▪ Support for the “yellow” alternative on displays (Alternative C/Build Alternative) - 2

▪ Concerns about property impacts - 2

▪ Concerns about who will pay for the Project - 3 

6.5 Next Steps

Upon signing of the DEIS, FRA will publish availability of the document for review in the Federal Register 

and a public hearing will be scheduled. A public hearing will provide interested citizens and businesses an 

opportunity to review the Build Alternative and provide comments on the Project. 

All comments received on the Project from the public and agencies will be addressed in the Final EIS and 

Record of Decision (ROD). 
This page left intentionally blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Mississippi Department of Transportation

Ms. Kim Thurman

Environmental Division Manager

Mississippi Department of Transportation

401 North West Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

Phone: (601) 359-7920

kthurman@mdot.state.ms.us

Adam Johnson

Location Engineer

Environmental Division

Mississippi Department of Transportation

401 North West Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

Phone: (601) 359-7875 

ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov

Rhea Vincent

Location Engineer

Mississippi Department of Transportation

401 North West Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

John Underwood

Environmental Division

Mississippi Department of Transportation

401 North West Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

junderwood@mdot.ms.gov

 

Federal Railroad Administration

John A. Winkle

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Phone: (202) 493-6067

John.Winkle@dot.gov

Marc Dixon

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

202-493-0845

Marc.Dixon@dot.gov

Melissa Hatcher

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

202-493-0614

Melissa.Hatcher@dot.gov

Kevin A. Wright

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

202-493-0845

Kevin.Wright@dot.gov
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7-2

CDM Smith

Michael T McGuire, PE 

CDM Smith 

1441 Main Street, Suite 1000, 

Columbia, SC 29201

803.758.4548 

Michael Belvin

CDM Smith

1441 Main St. Suite 1000

Columbia, SC 29201

Jennifer Pearson

CDM Smith

1441 Main St. Suite 1000

Columbia, SC 29201

Melanie Nable

CDM Smith

3200 Windy Hill Rd., Suite 210W

Atlanta, Georgia 30339

Terri V. Malone, AICP

CDM Smith

3200 Windy Hill Road, SE

Atlanta, Georgia 30339-5640

Marcus Sizemore

CDM Smith

421 Wando Park Blvd. Suite 210 

Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 

Robert Ball

CDM Smith 

2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 200

Lexington, KY 40504

Howard Beverly

CDM Smith 

2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 200

Lexington, KY 40504

David McBride

CDM Smith 

2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 200

Lexington, KY 40504

Dona Daugherty

CDM Smith 

2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 200

Lexington, KY 40504

Caroline Paulus

CDM Smith 

2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 200

Lexington, KY 40504

Ann Wilkinson

CDM Smith

2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 200

Lexington, KY 40504

Chris Rankin

CDM Smith

2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 200

Lexington, KY 40504

Melissa A. Ziegler, CEcD

CDM Smith 

1100 Marion Street, Suite 300

Knoxville, Tennessee 37921
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7-2

HDR

Mr. Kevin Keller, P.G.

HDR Engineering, Inc.

4435 Main Street, Suite 1000

Kansas City, MO 64111-1856

Phone: (913) 658-2571

Mr. James Rice, P.E.

HDR Engineering, Inc.

4435 Main Street, Suite 1000

Kansas City, MO 64111-1856

Ms. Doree Magiera

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1 Galleria Blvd., Suite 1920

Metairie, LA 70001-7541

Ms. Lisa Wadsworth, P.E.

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1 Galleria Blvd., Suite 1920

Metairie, LA 70001-7541

Ms. Brooke Savant

HDR Engineering, Inc.

201 Rue Iberville, Suite 115

Lafayette, LA 70508-3281

Ms. Amber Robinson

HDR Engineering, Inc.

201 Rue Iberville, Suite 115

Lafayette, LA 70508-3281

Mr. Ryan Hammons 

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400

Denver, CO 80202-4824

Ms. Tara Rae Kent

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400

Denver, CO 80202-4824

Mr. Cody Bingham 

HDR Engineering, Inc.

4828 Loop Central Drive, Suite 800

Houston, TX 77081-2220

Mr. Tim Casey 

HDR Engineering, Inc.

701 Xenia Ave, Suite 600

Minneapolis, MN 55416-1821

Mr. Ed Liebsch 

HDR Engineering, Inc.

701 Xenia Ave, Suite 600

Minneapolis, MN 55416-1821

Mr. Clayton Tinsley

HDR Engineering, Inc.

17111 Preston Road, Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75248-1229

Ms. Megan Koszarek

HDR Engineering, Inc.

17111 Preston Road, Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75248-1229

Ms. Ann Keen

HDR Engineering, Inc.

17111 Preston Road, Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75248-1229
This page left intentionally blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8-1

8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST

Federal Agencies

Mr. Andrew H. Hughes, Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration 

666 North St., Suite 105

Jackson, Mississippi 39269

Ms. Ntale Kajumba

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Atlanta Federal Center

61 Forsyth Street SW Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

Mr. Kenneth Dean

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

6578 Dogwood View Pkwy, Ste. A

Jackson, MS 39213

Mr. Charles Allred

Project Manager – Regulatory Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District

P.O. Box 2288

Mobile, AL 36628

Mr. Anthony Lobred

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Vicksburg District

4155 East Clay St. 

Vicksburg, MS 39183

Ms. Amy Carson

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service

6578 Dogwood View Pkwy., Suite A 

Jackson, MS 39213

Rick Hartman

Habitat Conversation Division

Baton Rouge, LA 

Kurt Readus

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

100 W. Capitol Street 

Suite 1321, Federal Building

Jackson, MS 39269
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8-2

Mr. Jonathan Linquist

Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)

PO Box 20636

Atlanta, Ga 30320

Mr. Patrick Scheuermann, Director

NASA, John C. Stennis Space Center

Center Operations Directorate

Stennis Space Center, MS 39259

State Agencies

Dr. Sam Polles, Executive Director

Ms. Nicole Hodges

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

1505 Eastover Dr.

Jackson, MS 39211

Mr. Gary Rikard, Executive Director

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

P. O. Box 2261

Jackson, MS 39225

Florence Bass, Branch Chief

Water Quality Certification Section

P.O. Box 2249

Jackson, MS 39225

florence_watson@deg.state.ms.us

Mr. Jamie Miller, Executive Director 

Ms. Willa Brantley

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

1141 Bayview Avenue

Biloxi, MS 39530

Ms. Kathern Blount, Director

Mr. Jim Woodrick, Division Director 

Mr. Hall Bell, Review & Compliance Officer

MS Department of Archives and History

P.O. Box 571

Jackson, MS 39205-0571
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8-3

Mr. Don Underwood, Executive Director

MS Soil and Water Conservation Commission 

680 Monroe Street

P.O. Box 23005

Jackson, Mississippi 39225

Mississippi Department of Human Services 

750 North State Street

Jackson, MS 39202

Mr. Brent Christensen

Mississippi Development Authority Division of Tourism Development

P. O. Box 849

Jackson, MS 39205

Mississippi Public Service Commission

P. O. Box 1174

Jackson, MS 39215

Glenn McCullogh, Jr, Executive Director 

Mississippi Development Authority 

P. O. Box 849

Jackson, MS 39205

Mississippi Forestry Commission 

660 North Street, Suite 300

Jackson, Mississippi 39202

Dr. Lester Spell, Jr. D.V.M., Commissioner MS Department of Agriculture and Commerce

P.O. Box 1609

Jackson, MS 39215

Mr. Charles E. Beasley, President & CEO

Mississippi Enterprise for Technology, Stennis Space Center

Building 1103, Suite 140

Stennis Space Center, MS 39259

David Baria, State Senator 

Mississippi House of Representatives

P. O. Box 1018 

Jackson, MS 39215
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8-4

Local Governments

Mr. Jack Norris, President

Gulf Coast Business Council

11975-D Seaway Road

Gulfport, MS 39503

Ms. Elaine Wilkinson

Gulf Regional Planning Commission

1232 Pass Road

Gulfport, MS 39501

Ms. Lisa Cowan, President

Hancock County Board of Supervisors

854 Highway 90, Suite A

Bay St. Louis, MS 39520

Ms. Tish Williams, Executive Director

Hancock County Chamber of Commerce

111 Court Street

Bay St. Louis, MS 39520

Mr. Bill Cork, Chief Executive Officer

Hancock County Ports & Harbor Commission

P.O. Box 2267

Bay St. Louis, MS 39521

Mr. J. Patrick Lee, President

Pearl River County Board of Supervisors (PRCBOS)

200 South Main St. 

Poplarville, MS 39470

Pearl River Basin Development District

P. O. Box 5332

Jackson, MS 39296

Leslie Newcomb, Executive Director

Southern Mississippi Planning and Development District

9229 Highway 49

Gulfport, MS 39503
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8-5

Others

Mr. Mike Grimm, Manager Industrial Development

Norfolk Southern

Mr. John Sanford, Manager Industrial Development

CSX Transportation

500 Beacon Parkway W. 

Birmingham, AL 35209

Wetlands Solutions

14231 Seaway Road, Suite 7007

Gulfport, MS 39503

Partners for Pearl River County

P.O. Box 278

Picayune, MS 39466
This page left intentionally blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-1

9.0 GLOSSARY

A

AART:

Alignment Alternatives Research Tool.

ACHP:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Adjacent Track:

In relation to excepted track and for the purposes of the Track Safety Standards, any track or tracks next

to a track that is designated as an excepted track. Any tracks with centerlines that are 30 feet or closer to

the excepted track in question are considered as adjacent and speeds on those tracks must not exceed 10 

mph.

Advanced Signal:

A fixed signal used in connection with one or more signals to govern the approach of a train or engine to

such signal.

Adverse:

Negative or detrimental.

Affected Environment:

The physical, biological, social, and economic setting potentially affected by one or more of the 

alternatives being considered.

Air Quality:

A measure of the concentrations of pollutants, measured individually, in the air.

Alignment:

The horizontal and vertical general location for the centerline of railroad tracks or a roadway within study

corridors.

Alignment Alternatives:

The general location for tracks, structures and systems for the system between logical points within study

corridors.

Alternative:

As used in the transportation analysis in this EIS, a variation of a rail corridor segment to mitigate a

potential adverse environmental or engineering factor. 

AREMA:

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association. North American body for determination 

of railway engineering standards.

At Grade:

A term used to describe roadways and track alignments that are at the same elevation (level) as the facility 

being crossed.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-2

Attainment:

An air basin is considered to be in attainment for a particular pollutant if it meets the federal or state 

standards set for that pollutant. 

A-Weighted Sound Level:

A measure of sound intensity that is weighted to approximate the response of the human ear, so it describes 

the way sound will affect people in the vicinity of a noise source.

B

Ballast:

Rock, gravel or other granular material placed on a road bed to support cross ties and rails and to aid

in holding the desired track geometry.

BFEs:

Base Flood Elevations.

Borrow:

Material, such as sand and gravel, which is extracted from an excavation or pit area that can be used to 

fill another site.

C

Capital Cost:

The total cost of acquiring an asset or constructing a project.

Carbon Dioxide: (CO2):

A colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the e arth’s atmosphere; significant quantities are also

emitted into the air by fossil fuel combustion.

Carbon Monoxide (CO):

A colorless, odorless gas that is generated in the urban environment, primarily by the incomplete 

combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles.

CDP:

Census Designated Place.

CEA:

Cumulative effects analysis.

Classes of Track:

A categorization of track based on the maximum allowable operating speed.

Classification:

The act of switching rail cars for sorting, segregating or grouping according to their kind, contents or

destination.

Clearance Limits:

The dimensions beyond which the size of, or projections of a shipment may not extend in order to clear

such things as switch stands, platforms, tunnels, and low bridges.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-3

Community Cohesion:

The degree to which residents have a sense of belonging to their neighborhood, a commitment to the

community, or a strong attachment to neighbors, groups, and institutions, usually as a result of continued

association over time.

Continuous Welded Rail (CWR):

Traditionally, track was laid in lengths of 39’ with a joint between each to allow for expansion and

contraction due to heat and cold. Joints were points of high maintenance. Continuous Welded Rail

typically consists of lengths between 400 and 1,600 feet in length and the joints between them are

eliminated by in-place welding using portable equipment. Without joints, expansion and contraction

can result in buckling in high temperatures and breaking in cold conditions.

Construction:

Any activity related to building projects, including highways or rail infrastructure (e.g., track, yards, 

bridges) that directly alters the environment.

Cooperating agency:

Under NEPA, any agency other than the lead agency that has legal jurisdiction over, or technical

expertise regarding, environmental impacts associated with a proposed action and has agreed to 

participate.

Corridor:

A geographic belt or band that follows the general route of a transportation facility (highway, railroad, etc). 

Crossbucks:

A term for railway crossing sign with crossed arms.

Crossing (Track):

A structure, used where one track crosses another at grade, and consisting of four connected frogs. 

CSXT:

CSX Transportation.

Cultural Resources:

Resources related to the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, living and dead, that are

valued by a given culture or contain information about the culture. These include, but are not limited

to sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects associated with or representative of people, cultures,

and human activities and events.

Cumulative Impact:

As defined by NEPA, and impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Curved Track:

Curved track is measured by degrees, with most main track curves falling between 1 and 5 degrees.

The degree of curvature is the angle subtended at the center of a simple curve by a 100-foot chord.

Curves require more power from locomotives, and the forces present while a train negotiates a curve

increases rail and car wear. Stronger track, ties and additional spikes are used in curves in order to take

the added loads.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-4

CZMA:

Coastal Zone Management Act.

D

Dangerous or Hazardous Goods:

Articles or substances, which are capable of posing a significant risk to health, safety or property 

when transported.

Decibel (dB):

A logarithmic measurement of noise intensity.

Dewatering:

The process of removing water from an area or substance, such as fill material.

E

EDR:

Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EIS:

Environmental Impact Statement.

EJ:

Environmental Justice.

Endangered Species:

A species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range, and has a formal 

listing of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act.

Engine (Eng):

A unit propelled by any form of energy, or a combination of such units operated from a single control,

used in train or yard service.

Environment:

Includes water, air and land and all plants and humans and other animals living therein, and the

interrelationship existing among these.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):

A detailed information document that analyzes a project’s potential effects and identifies mitigation

measures and reasonable alternatives to reduce the significant effects. This document is part of the NEPA

environmental review process.

Environmental Justice:

Identifying and addressing the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects of programs,

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.

EO:

Executive Order.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-5

Erosion:

Process by which earth materials are worn down by the action of flowing water, ice, or wind.

ESA:

Endangered Species Act.

Ethnicity:

A grouping or category of people based on shared cultural traits, such as ancestral origin, language, 

custom or social attitude.

F

Farmland of Local Importance:

Farmlands that are important to the local agricultural community, as determined by each county’s

board of supervisors and local advisory committee. 

Farmland of Statewide Importance:

Farmlands similar to prime farmlands but that have been evaluated as less valuable because they have

steeper slopes, less ability to retain moisture in the soil, or other characteristics that limit their use. To

qualify as farmland of statewide importance, a property must have been used for production of irrigated 

crops at some time during the previous four years.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA):

A Federal agency attached to the Department of Transportation. The FRA serves as the principal

organization for assistance to the Secretary of Transportation on all matters relating to rail transport and 

safety.

FEMA:

Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Floodplain:

The lowlands adjoining inland and coastal waters and relatively flat areas and floodprone areas of

offshore islands including, at a minimum, that area inundated by a 1% or greater chance flood in any

given year. The base floodplain is defined as the 100-year (1.0%) floodplain. The critical action

floodplain is defined as the 500-year (0.2%) floodplain.

FOIA:

Freedom of Information Act.

FPPA:

Farmland Protection Policy Act.

FRA:

Federal Railroad Administration.

FTA:

Federal Transit Administration.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-6

G

Gauge (of Track):

The distance between the rails, measured at right angles thereto 5/8 inches below the top of the rail.

(Standard gauge is 4 feet 8-1/2 inches or 56-1/2inches.)

Geographic Information Systems (GIS):

An information management system designed to store and analyze data referenced by spatial or geographic 

coordinates.

Grade Crossing:

The intersection of a railroad and a highway at the same elevation (grade); an intersection of two or more

highways; an intersection of two railroads.

Grade Separated:

At different elevations; on separate levels.

Ground Vibration:

The rapid linear motion of a compression wave in the ground caused by a single or repeated force or

impact to the ground as in the action of a pile driver or a tire hitting a bump or pothole in a road.

Groundwater:

Water contained and transmitted through open spaces in rock and sediment below the ground surface.

H

Habitat:

An environment where plants or animals naturally occur; an ecological setting used by animals for

a particular purpose, such as roosting or breeding.

Hazardous Materials:

Cargo that poses a risk to individuals and/or the environment, the movement of which is governed

by the Department of Transportation and other regulations. Hazardous Materials (hazmat) include 

corrosive materials, poisons and explosives among other substances.

HCPHC

Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission.

High Visual Impact:

Impact sustained if features of a project alternative are very obvious, such that they begin to dominate

the landscape and detract from the existing landscape characteristics or scenic qualities.

High/Wide Load:

A load that exceeds clearance limits.

Hours of Service:

A government regulation which determines the number of hours covered employees (defined by law and 

regulations) may work before going off duty for a specified length of time.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-7

I

ICE

Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Impact:

For an EIS, the positive or negative effect of an action (past, present, or future) on the natural environment

(land use, air quality, water resources, geological resources, ecological resources, aesthetic and scenic

resources) and the human environment (infrastructure, economics, social, and cultural).

In-Situ:

In the original or natural position.

Interchange or Interchange Point:

A place where the line of a railway company connects the line of another railway company and where

loaded or empty cars may be stored until delivered or received by that other company.

Interlocking:

A configuration of switches and signals interconnected to direct trains along different routes, the limits

of which are governed by interlocking signals. An arrangement of interconnected signals and signal

appliances for which interlocking rules are in effect. An arrangement of signal appliances so

interconnected that their movements must succeed each other in proper sequence. It may be operated

manually or automatically. Interlocking consists for most of them of controlled block signals with dualcontrol switches that are controlled by the dispatcher.

Interlocking Limits:

The tracks between the extreme or outer opposing interlocking signals of an interlocking.

Interlocking Signals:

The fixed signals of an interlocking, governing trains and engines using the interlocking limits.

Intermodal Traffic:

Traffic, which moves in containers, trailers on flatcars. Traffic, which moves in via two or more different 

modes of transport.

Invasive Species:

An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm 

to human health.

IPaC:

Information Planning and Conservation.

J - K

Joint Facility:

Two or more railways jointly operating on the same segment of tracks, covered by agreement between the

affected railroads.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-8

L

Land Use Compatibility Assessment:

An assessment of the compatibility of a proposed project or land use with existing and projected

land uses in nearby areas, based on the sensitivity of various land uses to change related to the

alternatives and the impact of these changes on the land use.

Lead Agency:

The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project or action

and is thus responsible for preparing environmental review documents in compliance with NEPA.

Leq:

A measure of the average noise level during a specified period of time.

Leq(h), dBA:

Equivalent or average noise level for the noisiest hour, expressed in A-weighted decibels. See also 

A-Weighted Sound Level.

Level of Service (LOS):

A rating using qualitative measures that characterizes operational conditions within a traffic stream and 

the perception by motorists and passengers of these conditions.

Limits:

A segment of track that can be controlled by signals or other identifiable means.

Line:

The condition of the track in regard to uniformity in direction over short distances on tangents, or

uniformity in variation in direction over short distances on curves.

Line Capacity:

The maximum possible number of trains capable of being operated over a line in one direction.

Usually expressed as trains per hour, it will depend on all trains running at the same speed, having 

equal braking capacity and on how the signaling is arranged.

Locomotive:

A unit propelled by any energy form, or a combination of such units, operated from a single control, as 

defined in the railroads Operating Rules (an engine).

Low-Income Population:

Poverty guidelines established for 2015, are a simplified version of the poverty threshold. Poverty threshold 

is what the Census Bureau uses to determine poverty population.

The poverty guideline shows that a household of four with an annual income of $24,250 or less is living 

in poverty.

Low Visual Impact

Impact sustained if features of a project alternative are consistent with the existing line, form, texture, and

color of other elements in the landscape and do no stand out.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-9

LUST

Leaking Underground Storage Tank.

LWCFA 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

M

Main Line:

The principal line of a given railroad company’s rail network. Main lines consist of either single, double

or multiple track lines extending between major stations. Trains are operated by time table, train order,

or governed by block signals. A track extending through yards and between stations, upon which trains

or engines are authorized and operated by time table or train order, or both, or the use of which is

governed by block signals by one or more methods of control. May not be occupied without proper

authority or protection.

Main Track:

For the purposes of the Track Safety Standards, a track other than an auxiliary track extending

through yards and between stations.

MARIS:

Mississippi Automated Resource Information System.

MCP:

Mississippi Coastal Program.

MDAH:

Mississippi Department of Archives and History.

MDEQ:

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality.

MDMR:

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources.

MDOT:

Mississippi Department of Transportation.

Medium Visual Impact:

Impacts sustained if features of a project alternative are readily discernable but do not dominate

the landscape or detract from existing dominant features.

MEMA:

Mississippi Emergency Management Agency.

MFN:

Mississippi Freight Network.

Mile Post:

Post along a railroad right of way, which indicates the distance, in miles, to or from a given point.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-10

Minority Population:

As defined for the purposes of this EIS - A community, census block, or block group in which the portion

of the population of a racial or ethnic minority is greater than county in which it is located.

Mitigation:

Action or measure undertaken to minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the adverse impacts of a project,

practice, action or activity.

MNHP:

Mississippi Natural Heritage Program

MOA:

Memorandum of Agreement

MSDEQ:

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

MTIF:

Multimodal Transportation Improvement Fund

MUTCD:

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

N

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS):

Federal standards stipulating the allowable ambient concentrations of specific criteria pollutants.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):

Federal legislation requiring federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of major federal

projects or decisions, to share information with the public, to identity and assess reasonable

alternatives, and to coordinate efforts with other planning and environmental reviews taking place.

Native Species:

With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, 

historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem.

NEI:

National Emissions Inventory

NEPA:

National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA:

National Historic Preservation Act

NO&M:

Rail subdivision is located between New Orleans and Mobile.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-11

No Action:

Under NEPA, refers to an alternative under which no action would be taken (no infrastructure would

be built and no new management or operational practices would be instituted).

No-Build Alternative:

Represents the region’s (and state’s) transportation system (highway, air, and conventional rail) as it

is today and with implementation of programs or projects that are in regional transportation plans

and have identified funds for implementation by 2030.

NOI:

Notice of intent

Noise:

Any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing; if intense enough, it 

can damage hearing.

NPDES:

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPMS:

National Pipeline Mapping System

NRHP:

National Register of Historic Places

NS:

Norfolk Southern Railway Company

NWI:

National Wetlands Inventory

O

On-track Equipment:

A machine that operates on a railway track and is used in connection with construction or work on, or 

inspection of, a railway track.

P

PA:

Programmatic Agreement.

PBRR:

Port Bienville Railroad.

Poverty Level:

A federally established income guideline published each year by the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Service used to define persons who are economically disadvantaged. For 2008, in the contiguous

U.S., this level is set at income less than $21,200 per year for a family of four.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-12

Preferred Alternative:

The alternative identified as preferred by the lead agency.

Prime Farmland:

Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed,

fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, 

and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion.

Purpose and Need:

The reason(s) why a project or action is undertaken, and the need(s) it is intended to meet or fulfill.

Q

Qualitative:

With regard to a variable, a parameter, or data, an expression or description of an aspect in terms of nonnumeric qualities or attributes.

Quantitative:

A numeric expression or variable.

R

Rail (Track):

A rolled steel shape, commonly a T-section, designed to be laid end to end in two parallel lines on

crossties or other suitable supports to form a track for railway rolling stock. It has three main parts:

1. The head that comes into contact with car wheels.

2. The web, which is the thinner, middle part of the rail; and

3. The base.

Rail Classification Yard

A railroad switching yard where railcars arriving in inbound freight trains are classified and reassembled

according to their routing to make up outbound freight trains.

Rail Joints:

Rail joints are plates of metal with holes used to join two pieces of rail end-to-end.

Record of Decision:

A document that provides a concise public record of a decision made by a government agency.

Under NEPA, a federal agency must issue a record of decision following the issuance of the final

EIS, and explain therein: 1) its decision; 2) the alternatives and reasons for deciding upon them; 3) any

significant expected impacts; and 4) a mitigation plan for those impacts.

Resource Study Areas (RSA):

Areas examined for potential environmental impacts as part of the NEPA analysis process. Examples 

include air quality, hydrology, and biological resources.

Right of Way:

The property owned by a railway company on which tracks have been laid, including the track and

land surrounding that track.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-13

RMS:

Root mean square.

ROD:

Record of Decision.

S

Scoping:

A process used under NEPA to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify the significant

issues related to the proposed action or project to be addressed in an EIS.

Section 4(f):

Provisions originally enacted as Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (23

C.F.R. 771.135) and subsequently codified in 49 U.S.C., Subtitle I, Section 303(c). The Section 4(f)

provisions address the potential for conflicts between transportation needs and the protection of lands

for recreational use and resource conservation by regulating the use of publicly owned parkland, recreation

areas, and historic sites. Specifically, they prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from approving any

program or project that would require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation

area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national significance as determined by

the officials having jurisdiction over these lands, unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to

the use of these lands. In addition, a proposed program or project must include all possible planning

to minimize harm resulting from the proposed use.

Shoulder of Track:

The outside portion of the track comprised of the ballast. The width of the shoulder is usually expressed as

the level top portion of the ballast up to the point where is begins to slope down.

SHPO:

State Historic Preservation Officer

Siding:

A track auxiliary to the main track, for meeting and passing trains, which is so designated in Timetable, 

General Bulletin Order, or Dispatchers Operations Bulletin.

Signal:

Visual indication passed to the locomotive engineer to advise the speed, direction or route of the train.

Some signals are: engine whistle signals, display of headlights, markers, blue signal protection, 

signals imperfectly displayed, and emergency protection signals.

Single Track:

One main track upon which trains are operated in both directions.

Speed:

Note: speed definitions may vary from one railroad to another and from one country to another. However, 

for purposes of this document, speed has the following meanings:

Limited Speed: A speed not exceeding 45 mph.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-14

Maximum Authorized Speed: The fastest speed that trains are permitted to operate over a track as

designated in a railroad timetable or special instruction.

Medium Speed: A speed not exceeding 30 mph.

Reduced Speed: A speed that permits complying with flagging signals and stopping short of train or 

obstruction.

Restricted Speed: A speed that will permit stopping within half of the range of vision of equipment,

also prepared to stop short of a switch not properly lined and in no case exceeding Slow Speed. At

restricted speed, the engineer should be on the lookout for broken rails.

Slow Speed: A speed not exceeding 15 mph.

Speed Restriction:

An imposed speed restriction of a train to below the maximum speed for the railroad, division,

or subdivision, caused by track, signal, train equipment, or environmental conditions.

Spoil:

Material composed of a variety of rocks and minerals having different chemical and physical characteristics 

and in varying proportions and sizes.

Spur Track:

Side track that is connected at one end only to a running track. Some form of bumping post or other solid

obstruction usually protects the other end.

SSC:

NASA’s Stennis Space Center

Stakeholder:

A person or organization with an interest in or affected by FRA actions (representatives from Federal,

state, tribal, or local agencies; members of Congress or state legislatures; unions; educational groups;

environmental groups; industrial groups, etc.; and members of the general public).

STB:

Surface Transportation Board.

Surface (Track):

The condition of the track as to vertical evenness or smoothness. Track surface may need to be measured

while under load, since some setting of the track can occur.

Switch:

A track structure used to divert rolling stock from one track to another.

Switching:

The physical movement of rail cars from one place to another within the limits of a yard, terminal or 

station.

SWPAs:

Source water protection areas
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-15

SWPPP:

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

T

T&E:

Threatened or Endangered

Threatened Species:

A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout

all or a significant part of its range.

Tie, Cross:

The transverse member of the track structure to which the rails are spiked or otherwise fastened

to provide proper gauge and to cushion, distribute, and transmit the stresses of traffic through the 

ballast to the roadbed.

Tie, Switch:

The transverse member of the track structure, which is longer than but functions as does the crosstie and

in addition supports a crossover or turnout.

TIP:

Transportation Improvement Program

TMDLs:

Total Maximum Daily Loads

Track:

An assembly of rails, ties, and fastenings over which cars, locomotives, and trains are moved.

Body: Each of the parallel tracks of a yard upon which cars are placed or stored. 

Classification: One of the body tracks in a classification yard, or a track used for classification purposes.

Departure: Tracks where rail cars are classified and assembled into trains for line- haul movement.

Interchange: A track on which cars are delivered or received, as between railways.

Lead: An extended track connecting either end of a yard with the main track.

Main Track: For the purposes of the Track Safety Standards, a track other than an auxiliary track

extending through yards and between stations.

Passing: A track auxiliary to the main track for meeting or passing trains. Same as a Siding. The correct 

term to use is “Siding” for repairs.

Receiving Track: Tracks where incoming trains are received.

Running: A track reserved for movement through a yard.

Side: A track auxiliary to the main track for purposes other than for meeting and passing trains.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-16

Spur: A stub track diverging from a main or other track.

Storage: One of the body tracks in storage yards or one of the tracks used for storing equipment.

Team: A track on which cars are placed for transfer of freight between cars and highway vehicles.

Train:

An engine or more than one engine coupled, with or without cars, or a track unit(s) so designated 

by its operating authority, displaying a marker(s).

Turnout:

An arrangement of a switch and a frog with closure rails, by means of which rolling stock may be 

diverted from one track to another.

U

Unique Farmland:

Land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber 

crops such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits and vegetables.

USACE:

United States Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

UXO:

Unexploded ordnance.

V

VFW:

Veterans of Foreign War

Viewshed:

A total field of vision or a vista. In particular, an area with visual boundaries seen from various points

within the area.

W

Watershed:

The area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream.

Water Table:

(1)The upper limit of the saturated zone (the portion of the ground wholly saturated with water).

(2)The upper surface of a zone of saturation above which the majority of pore spaces and fractures are

less than 100% saturated with water most of the time (unsaturated zone) and below which the opposite is

true (saturated zone).
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-17

Wetland:

An area of ground that is saturated with water either permanently or seasonally. A community composed

of hydric soil and hydrophytes.

Wildlife Corridor:

A belt of habitat that is essentially free of physical barriers such as fences, walls, and development

and connects two or more larger areas of habitat, allowing wildlife to move between physically

separate areas.

Wood Trestle:

A wood structure composed of bents supporting stringers, the whole forming a support for loads applied

to the stringers through the deck.

X – Y -Z

Yard:

A system of tracks within defined limits provided for making up trains, storing cars, and other

purposes, over which movements not authorized by time table or by train-order may be made, subject to

prescribed signals and rules, or special instructions. Under freight yard, the definition is: “A network of

tracks set aside for a railway’s own working purpose, such as classification, switching and holding rail

equipment.” It is common to use the words yard and track interchangeable in some instances, but they

are basically tracks used for a specific purpose and located within the yard limits.

Yard Limits:

That portion of the main track or main tracks within limits defined by yard limit signs.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9-18

This page is intentionally blank.